Oral
Answers to
Questions

BUSINESS, ENERGY AND INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Carillion

Diana R. Johnson: What assessment he has made of the effect of the liquidation of Carillion on the viability of small businesses.

Robert Syms: What steps he is taking to support businesses affected by the liquidation of Carillion.

Greg Clark: I have set up a taskforce bringing together small and medium-sized businesses, the Government, local government and trade unions to assist with the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises and the supply chain. The taskforce has delivered a range of supportive measures, including assistance from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for those experiencing difficulties and more than £900 million of support from UK lenders.

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but, with 30,000 small firms thought to be owed money by Carillion due to late payments and fees, will he look at the idea of project bank accounts that hold money in trust in ring-fenced bank accounts to make sure this situation does not arise again? The Specialist Engineering Contractors Group wants Britain to follow what is already happening in Australia, where such project bank accounts are used in all large public and private building contracts.

Greg Clark: I will indeed look at that, and it has been one of the recommendations of the taskforce. It is important that we learn all the lessons and apply them quickly, and this is one such suggestion.

John Bercow: Sir Robert Syms—where is the fellow? I call Antoinette Sandbach.

Antoinette Sandbach: The local authority pension fund forum has called for a review of accounting standards, having received opinion that there are substantial legal flaws in international reporting standards. The opinion states that the standards do not enable anyone to make a meaningful assessment of a  going concern, which is a highly relevant issue for Carillion. Will the Secretary of State support such a review?

Greg Clark: The day that Carillion went into insolvency I wrote to the Financial Reporting Council, and I spoke to its chairman, to ask it to investigate the auditors and those who are regulated as accountants. The FRC has agreed to do that, and it announced yesterday that the investigation is under way. I would expect it to learn the lessons for any changes to the regulations that it applies.

James Frith: Will the Minister confirm whether the advice to firms that have lost money as subcontractors of Carillion is that they take out a loan? Does he think it is acceptable that those firms should be charged interest on taking out a loan, rather than getting the money they are owed for jobs they completed as supply chain businesses of Carillion?

Greg Clark: On the first day of the insolvency, I had in the representatives of all the supply-chain organisations. The first request they made was that we get the banks in to make sure that they treat leniently their customers who were caught up in the insolvency. The banks agreed to do that, and they put funds aside to support and assist those customers. Each bank has made commitments that it will apply leniency to any terms and conditions faced by those businesses.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend has almost answered my question, because I was going to say that cash flow is as important as profitability. The problem with lack of cash flow is when the banks become too heavy and foreclose on smaller firms.

Greg Clark: That is exactly the point that the businesses made. That is why I asked the banks to attend in person to meet those businesses, and it is why the banks gave those commitments and guarantees. It is important for Members with constituents who may be affected that the banks have made that commitment and have made a promise that they will deal individually with anyone who is so affected. The measures are on each bank’s website, but any colleague should come back to me if they experience a problem.

Rachel Reeves: This morning, at a joint Select Committee hearing on Carillion, we were told by the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council that, before and after the collapse of BHS, he had asked for greater powers to regulate companies and take action before things go badly wrong. He told us that there was a lack of Government interest in making the necessary changes. In the light of the collapse of Carillion and the threat to thousands of jobs and suppliers in the supply chain, are the Government interested in taking action now?

Greg Clark: I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I engaged the FRC immediately, and it is very important that we and the FRC learn the lessons. We will apply whatever is appropriate that comes from those inquiries.

John Bercow: The hon. Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) says that he was not told of the grouping. If that is so, it is a discourtesy—I hope it is not so. Maybe it got lost in the post. Let us hear from the fellow.

Robert Syms: The collapse is really bad news for many smaller businesses, many of which will have their capital wiped out. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with banks about forbearance in keeping those businesses going so that there is proper competition in this market for the future?

Greg Clark: I apologise to my hon. Friend if he did not receive notice of the grouping—I am sure that is my error.
On engagement with the banks, each of them has responsibilities to its customers to help them through difficult times. The banks have explicitly committed to help them with any cash flow difficulties that they experience, and I expect the banks to deliver on it.

Alison Thewliss: Scottish training firm TIGERS—Training Initiatives Generating Effective Results Scotland—is working hard with the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland and the Construction Industry Training Board to place 126 apprentices who used to be placed in partnership with Carillion. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage small businesses to step forward to fill that gap and ensure that all apprentices can complete their training?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady raises an excellent question, and I want to pay tribute to the CITB, which has been working closely with its Scottish colleagues, for a magnificent response. It has been able to not only contact but offer continuity to all the apprentices—I think I am right in saying that—to give them the ability to continue their training. That was a formidable, agile response to an urgent situation, and it deserves the praise of the House.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: In July last year, the Government were warned by the Federation of Small Businesses and the Specialist Engineering Contractors Group that Carillion was transferring risk to its subcontractors. They highlighted that Carillion’s payment period was doubled from 65 to 120 days, that Carillion made money on the back of early payment by charging fees, and that regulation 113 of the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, which relates to 30-day payment, was not being enforced. Will the Secretary of State outline what actions, if any, he took on receipt of that information?

Greg Clark: The lessons and the scrutiny of what went wrong in Carillion, both on the part of its directors and its scrutineers, and in the oversight that took place across the whole of the public sector in terms of contracting, need to be looked at and will be looked at, including by Select Committees of this House. Whatever actions are required from that, we will take.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: So it is clear that no action was taken and that subcontractors were being mistreated again and again. But that is not all: the FSB and SEC Group also highlighted how retention moneys and project funds due to suppliers were not being protected from Carillion’s potential insolvency. As a result of the Government’s inaction, microbusinesses are now owed on average £98,000, small firms £141,000 and medium-sized firms £236,000, and large businesses are owed on average £15.6 million. Will the Secretary of State therefore  explain to the House and all the businesses affected why the Government took no action last July and why many are on the verge of bankruptcy today?

Greg Clark: Retentions and project bank accounts have been the subject, in response to those and other concerns, of a consultation on specific measures, which closed very recently. That came out of the recommendations that were made. Part of the taskforce that we have established includes these representative bodies, and they know that they have my commitment to take all the necessary actions to learn the lessons and protect any future concerns against things that could be learned from this case.

Low-paid Workers

James Cartlidge: What steps he is taking to ensure that low-paid workers are remunerated appropriately.

Andrew Griffiths: The national minimum wage and national living wage rates are recommended to the Government by the independent Low Pay Commission. To ensure that workers are paid fairly and that non-compliant employers are caught, the Government provide £25.3 million to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for minimum wage enforcement —that is an increase from £13 million in 2015-16. Last year, HMRC secured arrears of wages for 98,000 workers, totalling £10.9 million.

James Cartlidge: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and welcome him to his deserved new position. I very much welcome the national living wage as a way of boosting the wages of our lowest-paid workers. Does he share my surprise that there are those who criticise its generosity, given that the only international comparator is The Economist’s Big Mac index, under which we have the most generous minimum wage in Europe aside from that of its richest country, Luxembourg?

Andrew Griffiths: I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that. The next increase to the national living wage is to be a whopping 4.7%. The introduction of the national living wage was the biggest pay rise for low-paid workers in nearly 20 years. The latest increase will benefit more than 2 million people and is set to cover 3 million by 2020. The average earnings of a 25-plus, full-time worker have increased by £2,000 since 2016.

Helen Jones: When will the Government accept the need to actually prosecute more firms that fail to pay the national minimum wage? Only when people are prosecuted for breaking the law, rather than being issued with warning notices, are they going to take it seriously.

Andrew Griffiths: I gently point out to the hon. Lady that the Government take robust enforcement action against employers who do not pay their staff correctly. We have increased enforcement funding to £25.3 million this year. The total value of penalties has more than quadrupled since 2014-15, and in 2016-17 a record £3.9 million was recovered in penalties, with one penalty of more than £1 million being issued.

Tom Pursglove: Along with the steps the Minister has outlined, does he agree that increasing the tax-free threshold and taking the lowest paid out of tax altogether has made an enormous difference to many workers in this country?

Andrew Griffiths: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend: 4 million people have been taken out of paying tax as a result of decisions taken by this Government. The employment rate is 75.3%, which is the joint highest rate since comparable records began in 1971. We have record numbers of people in work, and unemployment is at its lowest for 40 years. This Government are on the side of the worker and the lowest paid.

Drew Hendry: Low pay stifles investment and holds back productivity. We in the Scottish National party believe that the economy is stronger when a real living wage is paid. The Minister’s own Department has rightly named and shamed 350 companies for failing to pay even the minimum wage. Does he therefore agree that the practice of companies paying no wages at all through unpaid work trials is morally repugnant? Will his Department support the ending of that shameful practice?

Andrew Griffiths: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that more than 160,000 people in Scotland benefit directly from the national living wage. The Government are looking closely at employment practices. We engaged Matthew Taylor to look into employment practices and to come up with new ways to support people, particularly those in the gig economy. We very much value that work and will be coming forward with recommendations in the very near future.

Executive Pay

Laura Smith: If he will take steps to regulate executive pay.

Stephanie Peacock: If he will take steps to regulate executive pay.

Andrew Griffiths: The Government will legislate to require quoted companies to publish and explain the ratio of their chief executive officer’s pay to the average pay of their UK employees. Companies will also have to provide a better explanation of how share price increases affect the value of complex, long-term incentive plans.

Laura Smith: Does the Minister acknowledge that there is sufficient compelling evidence to conclude safely and beyond any reasonable doubt that collective bargaining significantly reduces income inequality?

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue of collective bargaining and how that affects employee pay and the wider pay of executives. I should point out to her one interesting fact: the average FTSE 100 CEO’s pay leapt from £1 million to £4.3 million between 1998 and 2010, but CEOs’ pay fell by 17% in 2016. Interesting.

Stephanie Peacock: It would take the average person in Barnsley East more than 176 years to earn what the average FTSE CEO earns in 12 months. Does the Minister agree that that is a sign of grotesque inequality in the UK? What is he going to do about it?

Andrew Griffiths: What private companies pay their directors is ultimately a matter for their shareholders, but the new pay ratio disclosure requirements mean that we will give shareholders and other stakeholders important new information on how pay at the top of companies fits with wider workforce pay. Companies will be forced to explain and defend their pay ratios and account for changes to the ratio over time.

Philip Hollobone: Does the Minister agree that Britain’s biggest broadcaster, the BBC, is setting an appalling example to the nation over executive pay in failing to ensure gender parity?

Andrew Griffiths: I assure my hon. Friend that we absolutely and completely agree with fair pay. It is unacceptable that women who are doing the same job as men receive less pay. That must change. The BBC must act.

Jo Swinson: Hardworking people on ordinary incomes are understandably angry at the way executive pay has skyrocketed at a time when ordinary wages have remained flat. When can we expect to see these regulations that the Minister is talking about on publication of pay ratios, and can he confirm that this requirement will be in place for companies by June, as promised?

Andrew Griffiths: I have to point out to the hon. Lady that she may have her figures wrong. CEO pay has fallen, not risen. This Government are keen to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency in relation to the pay of top executives. We want to give the shareholders of companies greater power and ensure that there is greater accountability to shareholders and to the workforce.

Laura Pidcock: Since 2010, Carillion has paid out more than £500 million in dividends to shareholders while, over the same period, running up a pensions deficit of £587 million, a deficit that is now threatening the security of thousands of hardworking people. While those people suffer, former Carillion CEO Richard Howson was rewarded with a bonus package worth £1.5 million in 2016. Will the Government join me in condemning this scandal and work with the Labour party to end the failed model of outsourcing using shell companies and in condoning excessive pay, or will it be just business as usual?

Andrew Griffiths: Please allow me to assure the hon. Lady that any payments due to directors and executives of Carillion have been stopped; nobody is getting paid and nobody is getting executive bonuses. The moment that the insolvency happened, the Secretary of State wrote both to the Insolvency Service and the FRC to ensure that there was a thorough investigation of all payments to directors. If necessary, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Insolvency Service have the power to claw back all of those payments. I can assure her that we will be  learning the lessons from the Carillion insolvency and ensuring that we do all we can to support businesses going forward.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. We have a lot of questions to get through, so we do need to speed up a little bit.

Seafarers: National Minimum Wage

Chris Williamson: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the work of the legal working group on seafarers and the national minimum wage.

Andrew Griffiths: The Government believe that seafarers should be paid fairly for the work that they do. My Department and the Department for Transport worked with trade unions and employers to publish new guidance that explains the responsibilities of employers to pay the national minimum wage. We are crystal clear that if someone works in UK waters, they are entitled to at least the minimum wage and that all employers—no matter where they are from—must pay it.

Chris Williamson: I am pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that UK seafarers are being undercut by rates of pay as low as £1.75 an hour? That is happening even though the legal working group on seafarers and the national minimum wage, which includes his Department, agrees that legislative change is needed to provide more protection. Will the Minister give a commitment to work with the RMT and Nautilus to end this brazen exploitation, starting with the application and enforcement of the national minimum wage for seafarers working between UK ports and offshore installations?

Andrew Griffiths: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the guidance is clear that the national minimum wage applies on foreign registered ships when they are in UK territory. The new guidance is the first of its kind on the application of the national minimum wage specifically to seafarers, which shows that this is a priority for the Government. UK national minimum wage law must naturally have a limit, but if a person is employed as a seafarer in British waters, they will be entitled to the national minimum wage.

Apprenticeship Levy: SMEs

Ben Bradley: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on encouraging small and medium-sized enterprises to take advantage of the apprenticeship levy.

Sam Gyimah: The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Education are working together to establish a world-class technical education system, which is vital to our industrial strategy. This includes encouraging businesses, including SMEs, to offer apprenticeships. We are working with all employers  to ensure that the apprenticeship levy works effectively and flexibly for industry and supports productivity across the country.

Ben Bradley: I welcome my hon. Friend to his role on the Front Bench. I have previously had conversations with my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) in her former role as Education Secretary about finding new ways to support SMEs in my constituency to get involved in education, particularly through apprenticeships, which are important for my constituency as so few people there go to university. I will continue that approach with the Department for Education, but would my hon. Friend commit to meeting me to discuss how we might further support small businesses to train young people in Mansfield?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are committed to supporting businesses in Mansfield through the D2N2 Growth Hub. Since its launch, it has engaged more than 5,100 businesses. He mentions young people in his constituency. The message from this Government is that we will support those who think university is the best route towards building the future they want and that we will also support those for whom apprenticeships or a non-university route is the best route. We do not want to put a limit on aspiration, whatever that aspiration may be.

Barry Sheerman: I know that the Minister is new in his post, but he needs to wake up, for goodness’ sake. There is chaos and meltdown in the apprenticeship scheme, with a 62% drop in apprenticeship starts and further education colleges in bankruptcy. Small individual employers in the textile industry cannot get their apprenticeships through. Get a move on—do something about it, man!

Sam Gyimah: I welcome the characteristic passion with which the hon. Gentleman delivers his question, and I share his objective in that we both want the best future for young people. As he knows, the apprenticeship system is going through a change. It will now be employer-led with a focus on quality. We are in the first year of the levy operating and we did expect a bit of a dip, but this situation will recover to deliver the future for our young people.

Jeremy Lefroy: Further education colleges such as Newcastle-under-Lyme College and Stafford College are vital to the provision of apprenticeships, both under the levy and non-levy. But just having the levy on its own is not necessarily sustainable. Will the Minister ensure that all further education colleges have access to funding for non-levy apprenticeships?

Sam Gyimah: My hon. Friend makes a good point, but the levy is very much in its infancy. It is going to raise £2.6 billion to fund apprenticeships for young people. We have to give it time to work, but I take his point on board.

Derek Twigg: Businesses still tell me that there is skills shortage in my area. FE colleges have continually faced cuts by this Government. Given the introduction of the levy and the other policies that the Government have been talking about, at what point in  time does the Minister believe the skills gap will be filled, to meet the needs of business and the wider community?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Gentleman mentions a skills gap in his local area. This Government are committed to delivering 3 million apprenticeships to plug that gap. Some 1.2 million are now being created, and I am determined that we will deliver on our target.

Aerospace Sector

Gavin Robinson: What steps he is taking to support the aerospace sector.

Greg Clark: The Government enjoy a strong partnership with the aerospace sector through the Aerospace Growth Partnership. Since 2010, the sector’s turnover has grown from £24 billion to £34 billion, and exports have almost doubled. Following the excellent and wholly justified ruling of the United States International Trade Commission on Friday night, I am delighted that Bombardier in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be able to look forward to a bright future.

Gavin Robinson: Hear, hear! I was overjoyed on Friday night when Bombardier unanimously won its case with the United States International Trade Commission. In paying tribute to the Secretary of State and to the Minister responsible for the aerospace industry, I ask that they stand resolute against any appeal that may be lodged and ensure that the C Series, now that it is finally ready for take-off, is the true success we know it can be.

Greg Clark: I will indeed. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the stalwart in which he and his colleagues stood up for their constituents and, indeed, the supply chain that covers the whole United Kingdom. Right from the beginning, this has been a joint endeavour between us, the Canadian Government, the company and everyone with an interest in the success of Bombardier.

Vicky Ford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the future of our space and aerospace industries is key to our economic future and that practical measures like the new Space Industry Bill will open up new opportunities?

Greg Clark: I do indeed. Space is one of the fastest-growing sectors of the economy, and we are world leaders in it. Through the Bill, we will ensure that we have the right regulatory regime to underpin that.

Vincent Cable: Since the aerospace sector requires long-term planning and investment, does the Secretary of State not share my alarm at the threatened takeover of the leading tier 1 supplier GKN by a turnaround company specialising in maximising shareholder returns over five years maximum? Is this not a national security issue?

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman is a previous occupant of my post, so he knows that the powers that the Secretary of State has over these things have to be exercised in a quasi-judicial way. Therefore, I should not, and cannot, comment on that case. However, he  will know, because he has written to me, that I have spoken to both chief executives, and I am keeping it under close review.

Luke Graham: It is good to hear my right hon. Friend talk about the importance of aerospace. Will he consider the aerospace initiative that is being proposed in Kinross-shire in my constituency as part of the Tay cities deal, and will he or other colleagues meet me to discuss it?

Greg Clark: My colleagues and I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to develop the full potential of aerospace in his constituency.

Keep Me Posted Campaign

Martin Whitfield: Whether he has met representatives of the Keep Me Posted campaign.

Sam Gyimah: Representatives of the Keep Me Posted campaign are dedicated advocates for consumer choice on billing. Neither I nor current BEIS Ministers have met them, but my officials have done so in the past and are familiar with their campaign and the valuable work they do.

Martin Whitfield: Considering the levels of digital exclusion, including in broadband coverage in my constituency, will the Minister agree to meet me and Keep Me Posted to discuss the implications for our constituents?

Sam Gyimah: In response to the hon. Gentleman’s point about exclusion, I think the House can celebrate the fact that, under this Government, 95% of the country will be covered by our superfast broadband roll-out. However, I take his point on board and will be delighted to meet him.

Mike Wood: Will the Minister work with banks and utilities to ensure that charges for paper billing are restricted to the actual cost of providing that service and are not allowed to become a cumulative fee for those who need or choose paper bills?

Sam Gyimah: Yes, I am happy to work with them.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Minister’s commitment to meet the Keep Me Posted campaign. That is a very welcome development, particularly because older people in my constituency have made representations to say that they find it intolerable that they are not able to get paper bills. Will he assure me that he will take this on board for the whole United Kingdom?

Sam Gyimah: Absolutely. I do agree that consumer choice is important. Many suppliers offer paper bills, but they are not cost-free. It is important to recognise that at a time when we are seeking to boost productivity, it is not unreasonable for businesses to incentivise more efficient billing processes. The regulatory framework  varies by sector. Where charging differentials exist, we would look at that. I am happy to look at it across the whole United Kingdom.

Gill Furniss: While recognising the gradual shift away from paper statements and bills as they go online, it must be acknowledged that 16 million people over 15 years old still do not have basic online skills and 5.2 million households still do not have access to the internet at home, and they may face penalisation for requesting a paper bill or statement. What action, exactly, will the Minister take to ensure that people are not penalised for making what should be a legitimate consumer choice? What strategy will he put in place to make sure that people who do not have these skills at the moment can develop them in future?

Sam Gyimah: The hon. Lady makes the very important point that we should make sure that those who need paper bills do receive them and are not unfairly penalised. Any discount made for paperless bills, or charge for paper bills, in sectors where this is allowed must be justified in relation to the relevant administration costs. We do not believe that the Government should intervene to make other customers for whom online billing and payment is perfectly acceptable bear the costs of providing a paper billing service.

Small Business Sector

Trudy Harrison: What steps he is taking to support growth in the small business sector.

Maggie Throup: What steps he is taking to support growth in the small business sector.

Andrew Griffiths: We are actively supporting small businesses by enhancing the business support helpline and funding growth hubs in every local enterprise partnership area in England. The new Small Business Commissioner will help with payment issues, and British Business Bank programmes support nearly £4 billion of finance to more than 60,000 small and medium-sized enterprises.

Trudy Harrison: I thank the Minister and welcome him to his new position. Sellafield in my Copeland constituency is one of Britain’s biggest single-site employers. It is about to award its multimillion PPP contract. What is he doing to promote the role of SMEs, rather than just large companies, when awarding those contracts?

Andrew Griffiths: I clarify to the House that PPP stands for “programme and project partners” and not, as many might have assumed, “public-private partnership”. The programme that my hon. Friend talks about will support Sellafield in decommissioning and contains provisions designed to support small businesses. In November 2015, the Cabinet Office agreed to a target of 31% of spend with SMEs for the Government’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Moreover, as the Small  Business Minister, I will look at what I can do to ensure that more is done to help small businesses win Government contracts.

Maggie Throup: Will the Minister join me in commending the work of the Erewash Partnership, which helps entrepreneurs in my constituency to start up and grow their own small businesses? Will he consider what more Government can do to help such organisations expand their support services?

Andrew Griffiths: I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in applauding the work of the Erewash Partnership, which she will know was a previous winner of a national enterprise award—well done them. Through our industrial strategy, all businesses in every region will have access to a growth hub. We have announced a further £24 million of core funding over the next two years for growth hubs, including the D2N2, which I understand works with the Erewash Partnership. I am delighted to work with her to do what I can to support businesses in her constituency.

Richard Burden: Stability among larger tier 1 suppliers is really important to SMEs in the automotive and aerospace supply chains. Given that, does the Minister agree that if the Melrose bid for GKN splits up and sells off that company, as is anticipated, that cannot be in the interests of either sector or SMEs in this country?

Andrew Griffiths: We are always sensitive and aware of the impacts on the supply chain. We need a strong supply chain, but I point the hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State’s previous answer on that issue.

Drew Hendry: Support for the small business sector will be even more urgent given the findings of the UK Government’s leaked Brexit analysis, which shows that in all current scenarios, businesses across all sectors and all parts of the UK will be hammered with between 2% and 8% reductions in GDP growth. Will the Minister confirm what planning his Department has undertaken in the light of those figures? Is he declining to publish because it is too embarrassing?

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will know that that issue is the subject of an urgent question later on in the House. I would hate to spoil his fun, so I will leave it to others.

Carbon Reduction Targets

Helen Hayes: What assessment he has made of the UK’s ability to meet its carbon reduction targets.

Claire Perry: If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s predecessor, who made an amazing and powerful speech in the other place. It was quite astonishing.
We should all be proud of the excellent progress the UK has made in meeting its carbon reduction targets. The current numbers show that we have met out first budget, are on track to exceed our second and third budgets and are 97% and 95% of the way to meeting our fourth and fifth budgets. The clean growth strategy  that I brought forward last year sets out an ambitious set of 50 policies and proposals that will help us to meet those targets.

Helen Hayes: I thank the Minister for her tribute to my predecessor, Baroness Jowell, who is much loved in Dulwich and West Norwood.
Southwark Council confirmed last week that it has invested its £150 million pension fund in a low-carbon investment, concluding that continuing to hold significant investments in fossil fuels in the context of climate change would present a long-term financial risk to the fund. Will the Minister tell me what conversations she is having with private firms with large pension funds to encourage and facilitate divestment from fossil fuels, which is now clearly the most responsible decision for pension fund members and the future of our planet?

Claire Perry: The hon. Lady points out the very powerful fact that the Government can set policy and bring forward achievable targets, such as our renewables ambition, but we also need the private sector and private capital to be involved in financing this transition. I have numerous conversations with companies about what they are doing with their own investments and, equally, about what they will be doing to help other companies invest in a more sustainable future. I refer her to the Powering Past Coal Alliance, which I launched with my Canadian counterpart last year and which is helping the world to get off the dirtiest form of fossil fuel heating.

Stephen Crabb: Given that more than a year has now passed since the Hendry review reported on the potential contribution of tidal lagoon technology, when does my right hon. Friend think that Ministers will be able to respond positively to that report and give a green light to this important environmental technology?

Claire Perry: I am left in no doubt by my right hon. Friend and others about how anxious people are to see this review go forward. We want to get our future investment in renewable energies right. We continue to look very closely at this, and I hope that we will be able to inform the House shortly.

Alan Whitehead: The Minister will have seen the recent report by the Committee on Climate Change about the Government’s clean growth strategy in relation to the fifth carbon budget. Indeed, I know that she has seen it, because she wrote the committee a nice letter thanking it for its report. What plans does she have in place to rectify the shortcomings and omissions in that strategy, as identified by the Committee on Climate Change in its report?

Claire Perry: As the hon. Gentleman and I both know, the report basically said there had been a sea change in our ambition for future climate reduction actions. I was extremely grateful to the committee, as I always am, for its scrutiny and information. We were the first country in the world both to pass a climate change Act and to set up an independent scrutineer. As we all know, we have to do more, particularly on business energy efficiency and new homes standards. I am looking forward to working in a consensual way, cross-party, to bring forward those measures.

Pilot Town Deal

Martin Vickers: What progress his Department is making on developing a pilot town deal as outlined in the industrial strategy.

Richard Harrington: I am delighted that the industrial strategy White Paper commits to considering a town deal for Grimsby, which I know has been warmly received by my hon. Friend. I welcome the strong public-private approach to driving forward ambitious plans for the regeneration of Grimsby. The Department and the project board are in close contact on the detail of this deal, and I hope that we will have a proposal for consideration in the very near future.

Martin Vickers: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I would point out that this deal also includes Cleethorpes—it is for Greater Grimsby. I know that discussions are continuing at official level, but I would welcome an opportunity for the Minister to meet representatives of the project board in the new future, so that we can give some political clout to this deal, which could provide a pilot for many provincial towns up and down the country.

Richard Harrington: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and members of the Greater Grimsby—including Cleethorpes—project board either as soon as I am able to leave Westminster or in Westminster. I encourage my hon. Friend to organise a meeting here so as not to lose any time in holding this important engagement—and if he wants to bring some local fish and chips, that would be fine.

Melanie Onn: rose—

John Bercow: Let us hear the voice of Grimsby.

Melanie Onn: The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will know that Great Grimsby is obviously the centre of the universe, certainly in northern Lincolnshire. This project is really important, and it is essential to improving jobs, skills, housing and culture in my constituency of Great Grimsby. It does seem to have been ping-ponged between the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Who is taking the lead, how much will the Government commit to ensuring its success and when will my very patient constituents start to see the change that they deserve?

Richard Harrington: I assure the hon. Lady that I am not a ping-ponger, and this shows the Government working together. We will continue to work together, and I will take responsibility for making sure this happens as soon as is possible.

Carillion

Paul Blomfield: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the potential effect of the liquidation of Carillion on workers’ pensions.

Andrew Griffiths: The taskforce established to tackle the impact of Carillion’s liquidation includes the Department for Work and Pensions, and my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary is in regular contact with my right hon. Friend the Pensions Secretary. Those already receiving their pensions will continue to receive payment at 100% of the usual rate. Anyone worried about their pension situation can contact the Pensions Advisory Service; its dedicated helpline has now responded to over 800 calls since Carillion’s insolvency.

Paul Blomfield: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think it will be of very little comfort to many Carillion staff, past and present, when they hear that the deficit in their pension fund is approaching £1 billion. Public sector contracts have made some at the top of Carillion very rich indeed, so what action is the Minister taking to ensure that current and future pensioners do not lose out?

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will understand that issues in relation to pension schemes are a matter for the independent Pensions Regulator. However, the Pensions Regulator has been in contact with Carillion and the pension scheme trustees for a number of years about the funding of the pension scheme. I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the work of the taskforce is to look at what happened in relation to the Carillion insolvency, and to ensure that if lessons are to be learned, we will learn them.

Rachel Maclean: The global headquarters of GKN is in my Redditch constituency. It employs 200 people, and concerns have been raised about the pension scheme there as well. The Pensions Regulator is warning that in the event of a takeover, there may be something to look at. What lessons is the Minister learning from Carillion in this case, and what further action does he need to take?

Andrew Griffiths: The Secretary of State, I think, has already outlined the approach with which the Government are handling the takeover of GKN, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the implications of business actions, and particularly takeovers, in relation to pension schemes are a priority for the Government. We will continue to proceed with care and caution to protect the interests of all members of pension schemes.

Agency Workers

Gareth Thomas: Whether he plans to review the rules governing the use of agency workers.

Andrew Griffiths: The Government work to ensure that our labour markets work for everyone. That was why the Prime Minister asked Matthew Taylor to carry out an independent review on modern working practices. The Government are considering the issues that the review has raised, including rules governing the use of agency workers.  The review is comprehensive and detailed, and we have been giving the report the careful consideration it deserves. We will respond shortly.

Gareth Thomas: Two thousand workers in BT call centres, some of whom handle 999 calls, are paid up to £500 less per month than permanent staff because BT uses the loophole known as the Swedish derogation under agency workers regulations. Taylor recommended its abolition; when will the Minister get on with it?

Andrew Griffiths: As I have outlined, the Matthew Taylor report does, in some depth, look at the Swedish issue. I am meeting Matthew Taylor this afternoon, and that issue will be one of those that we shall discuss. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that in 2017, the employment agency standards inspectorate dealt with more than 800 complaints from agency workers. EAS investigations have protected an estimated 303,000 agency workers, and we will continue to defend their interests.

John Cryer: How many of those complaints under the agency workers directive led to successful prosecutions?

Andrew Griffiths: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the answer.

Renewable Energy

Stuart McDonald: What recent steps he has taken to support the development of renewable energy sources.

Mary Creagh: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of investment in the renewable energy sector.

Claire Perry: The development of renewable energy is a tremendous UK success story. Thanks to our significant investment and the support of all of us, renewable capacity has quadrupled since 2010. Last year, 30% of our electricity generation came from renewable sources.

Stuart McDonald: Yesterday, 10 UK trade associations wrote to the Secretary of State to express serious concern about delays to the long-awaited feed-in tariff consultation. Will he or Ministers agree to meet them to address both those concerns and the uncertainty facing small-scale low-carbon energy projects?

Claire Perry: I am always happy to engage with anyone who would like to further the cause of renewable energy in the UK, so I would be happy to do so.

John Bercow: I call Mary Creagh. Not here—where is she?

Paul Masterton: More than half of Scottish energy consumption is met by renewable sources, including the Whitelee wind farm, based near Eaglesham in East Renfrewshire, which is the largest onshore wind farm in the UK, but can the Minister confirm that less-established renewable energy  projects in Scotland will be able to compete for the £557 million of funding that is available as part of the clean growth strategies?

Claire Perry: As my hon. Friend knows, because we have discussed it several times, we are looking hard at how we use that committed £557 million of support for renewable energy in a way that brings forward projects when there is significant local support. I look forward to continuing the discussion with him.

Ronnie Cowan: For the first three quarters of 2017, renewable electricity generation in Scotland was 19% greater than in the same period in the previous year. Scotland is on track for a record year of renewable generation in 2017. Will the Secretary of State commend the efforts of the Scottish Government in this area, and, in particular, the new target to have 50% of Scottish energy needs covered by renewables from 2030?

Claire Perry: Scotland benefits from some fantastic geographical advantages that mean that it is a world leader in many of these things, but it is, of course, UK bill payers across the nation who are investing in the introduction of renewable energy, whether that is in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Electric Vehicle Charge Points

Mark Pawsey: What steps the Government have taken to improve electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.

Gillian Keegan: What steps the Government have taken to improve electric vehicle charge point infrastructure.

Richard Harrington: We have a range of grant schemes to support the installation of charging infrastructure—on-street, off-street and at workplaces. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a £400 million joint public and private charging infrastructure investment fund.

Mark Pawsey: My constituency is already home to the new electric London taxi, and we have recently heard the announcement of £80 million of investment in a new electric battery development facility in Coventry. Does the Minister agree that this presents opportunities for my constituency and the wider area to establish leadership in the electric vehicles sector?

Richard Harrington: It certainly does, and I have had the honour of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency. On the day we announced the battery facility he mentions, the CEO of Jaguar Land Rover declared:
“We also intend to produce battery electric vehicles in the region, bringing the West Midlands to the forefront of modern mobility in the UK.”
That is the industrial strategy in action.

Gillian Keegan: Chichester District Council has invested in 20 new electric vehicle charging points in carparks throughout the district. However, a constituent recently told me that it took him six and a half hours to get from  Chichester to Oxford in his electric car because there were insufficient charging points during the journey. What is the Minister doing to join up individual council initiatives to ensure that there is a comprehensive network of charging points nationwide?

Richard Harrington: We are pressing hard on this. The Government are taking powers under the Automated and Electric Vehicle Bill to ensure that the infrastructure is rolled out. Government leadership, along with local authority engagement and a growing private sector, means that the UK now has more than 11,500 publicly accessible charge points. The Government have committed £15 million to ensuring that there will be one every 20 miles on the strategic road network. That is coming, and it will be coming soon.

Topical Questions

John Penrose: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Greg Clark: Since our last Question Time, it has been my pleasure to introduce my new colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), to the Department and to see our agenda progressing. We announced the automotive sector deal, supporting British innovators and manufacturers with a joint commitment of millions of pounds of investment from industry and Government. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that the deal would place the UK at the forefront of electric, connected and autonomous vehicles. I am delighted to announce that Lotus Cars has announced its intention to invest significantly to expand its production, creating 300 new jobs at its plant in Norfolk. Production will increase fivefold in the years ahead.

John Penrose: Energy distribution network operators charge obscenely high prices on our energy bills and make absurdly large profits for running safe, low-risk monopoly businesses that get energy to our homes. Does the Secretary of State agree that Ofgem has been far too soft on these firms for ages, allowing them to get fat and lazy at customers’ expense? Will he join me in urging Ofgem to get a great deal tougher in future?

Greg Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend and welcome the decision by SGN, SSE and National Grid to refund excess returns to consumers—the others should follow suit. He is absolutely right, and in the next price control period, Ofgem should have a much tougher regime.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. May I gently remind colleagues that at topical questions progress is expected to be much quicker? We need short, sharp inquiries; people should not simply seek to bring into topicals what they would have asked had they been called—which they were not—in substantive questions. Pithy questions; pithy answers.

Chi Onwurah: I shall try to be pithy, Mr Speaker.
GKN is a great British engineering company, forged in the first industrial revolution with strengths in defence, aerospace, automotive, batteries and the internet of things, which should place it at the heart of our future economy—high skills, high productivity and high wage—but the debt-driven hostile takeover threatens 6,000 UK workers, pension funds and the supply chain. The Secretary of State has said that he will not comment on individual cases, so may I ask him a general question? Does he believe that it is in the national interest for City investment houses to use debt to dismantle our industrial base?

Greg Clark: The hon. Lady understands the constraints that I have in any particular takeover. As a feature of our economy, it is very important that we have investment into our companies from those with the capital to do so. That is why we have a regime that limits the grounds for intervention, but there are certain grounds that I will have to consider during the time ahead.

Laurence Robertson: Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news announced by the aerospace trade association—ADS—of record new aircraft delivery figures worth £29 billion to the UK in 2017, as well as the further announcement of an order by Emirates for an additional 36 Airbus A380s? How will the Government help to ensure that the UK aerospace supply chain is in a position to take advantage of those excellent opportunities?

Richard Harrington: The sector has huge growth potential. The Government support the industry through the aerospace growth partnership and have committed £3.95 billion for it, which already supports 200 companies, including Safran and GE Aviation in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Rachel Reeves: By last Friday, just 526 of the 9,000 companies that need to report their gender pay gap had done so. What powers do the Government have to compel companies to publish these numbers ahead of the April deadline, as there are no civil or criminal sanctions in the regulations?

Claire Perry: Having just taken over the diversity portfolio in the Department, I share the hon. Lady’s extreme disappointment at companies failing to report. I will take this matter forward and perhaps work with her as a matter of urgency.

Bim Afolami: Bearing in mind the world-leading reputation of Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, will the Secretary of State explain what plans the Department has to work with Rothamsted, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and other bodies to further improve Britain’s world-class position in agricultural science?

Sam Gyimah: I will make three quick points: the Government are investing £70 million in the agri-tech catalyst and £80 million in four centres for agricultural innovation through the 2013 agri-tech strategy; and I pay tribute to Rothamsted  Research as a key partner in agrimetrics. We are working together to deliver integrated solutions for the agricultural community.

Chris Elmore: On 10 January, the First Minister of Wales sent a letter to the Prime Minister offering substantive funds for the tidal lagoon. When will he get a response and when will we have the tidal lagoon decision for investment across Wales?

Greg Clark: Officials are meeting their counterparts in the Welsh Government so that they can understand and explore the proposal that has been made.

Maria Caulfield: As banks are closing on our high streets, two of my towns, Newhaven and Polegate, are not having any banking facilities left. Will the Minister consider expanding the facilities that post offices offer? Postmasters such as the one in East Dean in my constituency are keen to do more, but Post Office Ltd refuses to allow them to do so?

Andrew Griffiths: I take on board the very important question that my hon. Friend asks. The Government have invested over £2 billion to ensure that the Post Office is able to meet the needs of our constituents and the small businesses that rely on it. That means that 99% of UK personal bank accounts and 95% of small business accounts can be accessed to withdraw cash, and that customers can deposit cash over the counter or cheques in any one of the 11,600 post offices across the UK.

Wera Hobhouse: Investment in solar energy has fallen by 85% over the last year. Will the Minister explain why her Department believes that solar energy no longer requires public subsidy?

Claire Perry: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that I opened Britain’s first subsidy-free solar farm last year. The great success of the policy framework and the investments that we have all made through our bills means that we are able to bring forward renewable energy without substantial subsidies. I would have thought that she would welcome the idea of getting more renewable energy for less investment.

George Howarth: Given that the Keep Me Posted campaign has pointed out that those who cannot or do not use the internet pay £440 a year more in household bills, will the Minister consider extending the provisions that already exist in banking to energy and telecommunications bills?

Sam Gyimah: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, which is why I agreed in a previous response to meet the campaign’s officials to see how we can work on this.

Simon Clarke: The loss of over 200 jobs at Cleveland Potash is a heavy blow for people living in Loftus and east Cleveland, so I am grateful to the small business Minister for negotiating an agreement across Government to extend the same flexibilities around training granted to workers at SSI to those at Boulby.  The chief executive of the taskforce has described that as critical. Will he commit that this will all be finalised before redundancies are announced in the spring, so that people leaving Cleveland Potash can have certainty?

John Bercow: I remind colleagues of the merits of the blue pencil. If you have a prepared question and it is a bit on the long side, just scratch a bit out—very useful, and the question never suffers.

Andrew Griffiths: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his tenacity in campaigning on behalf of his residents. Following his representations on the impact of the proposed redundancies, I am happy to confirm that there will be additional flexibility in how the rapid response service can be used. That means that, while there is no additional funding, all workers made redundant from Cleveland Potash will benefit from the same flexibilities for job-focused training as have been made available to ex-SSI and supply chain workers.

Jim Shannon: In the light of the possible barriers to resolving cross-border insolvencies in the UK post Brexit, what assessment has the Minister made of the need to reform the UK’s corporate insolvency framework to ensure that it is fit for purpose?

Greg Clark: We keep the insolvency regulations under constant review, in response both to Brexit and to lessons learned from our experiences domestically. I will work with the hon. Gentleman to make sure that his views are fed in.

Neil Parish: Consumers in the south-west are paying extra on their bills because energy network companies are charging too much. We need greater competition and more teeth in the watchdog to do something about it.

Claire Perry: I think that my hon. Friend is inviting me, as a fellow south-west MP, to agree with him. Network costs vary regionally because of different costs in serving customers. Ofgem took more than £15 billion out of network costs in its last price control framework, and I look forward to introducing various measures such as the price cap Bill, which I shall be introducing shortly, that I hope will be supported by all Members of the House. We want to ensure that we have energy bills that consumers can afford and that we protect the most vulnerable in the process.

John Bercow: Short, single-sentence questions are now the order of the day, as will be brilliantly exemplified by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).

Tim Farron: I will see what I can do.
The universal service obligation for superfast broadband will be good news for businesses across the country, but the fact that the announcement has been made with no date makes it counterproductive, as that is slowing down broadband. Will the Government announce a date and say that registration can start immediately?

Andrew Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will find that the date set out in the Digital Economy Act 2017 was 2020, but I am sure he will join me in congratulating the Government on their success in ensuring that 95% of the country now has access to broadband.

Kevin Hollinrake: Will the Minister support Transport for the North’s strategic transport plan, which calls for a 50% increase in regional infrastructure spending across the north of England?

Richard Harrington: Infrastructure is a major pillar of the Government’s industrial strategy White Paper, and local input is essential. I welcome Transport for the North’s input, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will welcome this, too.

Jack Dromey: The hostile takeover of GKN by Melrose threatens break-up, sale and closures. The Secretary of State has powers under section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 to intervene. Will he intervene to block this hostile takeover, which is not in the national interest?

Greg Clark: I have explained to other Members the importance of exercising these powers in the required way and of not giving a running commentary in this House.

Alex Chalk: Does the Minister agree that competitive rates of interest should be offered to businesses and subcontractors that are affected by the LARC collapse, and that the 8.64% offered to LARC Construction in my constituency is simply too high?

Andrew Griffiths: I agree with my hon. Friend that access to competitive finance is essential, not just for businesses affected by LARC, but more widely, and particularly for small businesses. I am happy to meet him to discuss the issues if he would like me to.

John Bercow: It is a great pleasure to welcome back to the House the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I know that the House will join me in doing so.

Anna Turley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be back.
We have ambitious plans on Teesside to create 20,000 jobs on the former SSI steel site. The biggest issue holding us back is, obviously, the ownership of the site. Can the Secretary of State update us on what conversations he is having with the official receiver and the Thai banks to enable us to fulfil our potential, create jobs, and bring investment back to the site?

Greg Clark: I welcome the hon. Lady back to the House and commend her for her commitment to ensuring that we secure the best possible future for that site. I shall visit Teesside shortly to continue our discussions. There is great commitment on the part of both the Government and the local development corporation to finding the right solution. The ownership is not in the Government’s hands, but everything that can be done is being done.

Michelle Donelan: A constituent of mine is a director of Tower Supplies, one of the leading small and medium-sized enterprises in the personal protective equipment sector, whose bid was recently rejected by Transport for London in the first round of the process with no explanation. The practice is for feedback to be given, but that does not always happen. Will the Minister work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and other Departments to ensure that the system does not hinder SME growth?

Andrew Griffiths: The Government are committed to ensuring that more small businesses are able to bid for such contracts. We want to support SMEs through the procurement process, and to ensure that they can be competitive and win such contracts. I shall be happy to meet my hon. Friend and representatives of the company that she mentioned in order to find a solution.

Eleanor Smith: When I met the Minister last week, I was told that the Carillion headquarters would continue to operate in the interim. What steps are the Government taking to safeguard jobs for the employees who work in my constituency?

Andrew Griffiths: I think that the hon. Lady and I spoke on the telephone on the day of the insolvency, and I think I have met her twice since then, along with other Wolverhampton colleagues, to ensure that she  is kept fully updated. We are working closely with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Insolvency Service in the best interests of not just the creditors but all those employed in the Carillion network. To date, things have been positive, but I will seek to update the hon. Lady further as more information becomes available.

Gillian Keegan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Order. I think that this point of order flows from the exchanges that we have just had. Although ordinarily points of order are made later, I will—as I sometimes do—take this one immediately after questions.

Gillian Keegan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I asked a question earlier, I neglected to say that I am a serving member of Chichester District Council.

John Bercow: That is a very belt-and-braces approach, for which the hon. Lady certainly cannot be criticised in any way. I thank her, as the House will, for what she  has said.

LEAVING THE EU: ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Keir Starmer: (Urgent Question)  To ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to make a statement on the Government’s analysis of the long-term economic impact of Brexit on the economy.

Steven Baker: I will begin by setting out our approach to publishing economic analysis, I hope once and for all.
I can confirm that—I think the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will want to listen to this. I can confirm that when we bring forward the vote on the final deal that we agree with the European Union, we will ensure that the House is presented with the appropriate analysis that the Government have carried out, so that the House can make an informed decision. All Members must surely agree, however, that the Government cannot be expected to put such an analysis into the public domain before it has been completed. That would misrepresent our views. Furthermore, the Government cannot be expected to publish the analysis while the negotiations continue, which would surely harm the national interest. Parliament has rightfully agreed that Ministers have a duty not to publish anything that could risk exposing our negotiating position.
Let me now turn to the article that prompted the urgent question. It is a selective interpretation of a preliminary analysis. It is an attempt to undermine our exit from the European Union. As I have told the House before, the Government are undertaking a wide range of analysis on our exit from the EU. The next stage of that analysis, summarised in a draft paper presented to Ministers this month, has been a cross-Whitehall effort to support our negotiating priorities. It has not been led by my Department, and it is not yet anywhere near being approved by Ministers. Even the ministerial team in my Department has only just been consulted on the paper, in recent days, and we have made it clear that it requires significant further work. In fact, I saw this report myself only this morning. The analysis to which I believe this article refers is a preliminary attempt to improve on the flawed analysis around the EU referendum. It is there to test ideas and to design a viable framework for the analysis of our exit from the EU. At this early stage, it only considers off-the-shelf trade arrangements that currently exist; we have been clear that these are not what we are seeking in the negotiations. It does not yet consider our desired outcome: the most ambitious relationship possible with the EU, as set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech.
Such an agreement is in the interests of both the UK and the EU. Therefore, the scenarios in this analysis continue to suffer from the flaws we have seen in previous analyses of this type. Such analyses have been proved to be wrong in the wake of the referendum, not least because there is huge uncertainty around any forecast, especially in the long run and especially in the context of a major strategic choice.
It is the Government’s job to improve on this analysis, but to do so we first have to understand where it went wrong previously. That is what the analysis to which  this article refers is: it is not a forecast for our preferred outcome of the negotiations; it does not yet properly take account of the opportunities of leaving the EU.
Finally, on 23 June 2016 the people of this country took a decision to leave the EU in the context of a wide range of economic information. The purpose of this analysis is not to question that decision, which this House voted overwhelmingly to uphold. I hope all Members of this House will agree that we should continue to respect the result of the referendum.

Keir Starmer: Not good enough.
Here we go again: Brexit impact assessments, take two. For the past year, we have called on the Government to publish Brexit impact assessments. It is a simple argument: on decisions of this significance, Parliament is entitled to know the likely impact of the Government’s approach to Brexit and thus to hold the Government to account. The Government have repeatedly refused our requests.
Last year the Secretary of State initially insisted that these reports existed in “excruciating detail”, but were so sensitive that nobody else could see them. After this House passed a binding Humble Address, the Secretary of State changed tack, telling the Brexit Select Committee just last month that no “economic forecast of outcome” had ever existed. Yet last night we learn that an analysis has been produced after all.
This is now piling absurdity upon absurdity, and there are some pretty obvious questions. When was this new analysis commissioned? In particular, was it before or after the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Brexit Select Committee last month on this issue? Is this the only report that has been prepared on the Brexit scenarios? If not, what other analysis has been done? Does this new analysis model the Government’s Brexit approach? If not, why not? If so, will it lead to changes in Government policy? Finally, and most importantly, will the Secretary of State publish this now—not in nine months, but now, so that we can hold the Government properly to account?
We have been here before. It took a great deal of time last year and the use of a Humble Address to force the Government to release documents relating to Brexit. The Secretary of State has the chance today to avoid a repeat of that exercise if he commits to publishing this new analysis in full; will he do so?

Steven Baker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman raises the question of impact assessments, and what I can say to the House is that we have always been absolutely clear that we have a wide-ranging programme of analysis, which is evolving continually, but this economic analysis is not what is formally known as an impact assessment. [Interruption.] What I would say to the House—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. There is excessive gesticulation from a number of hon. Members, which is unseemly and certainly unstatesmanlike.

Steven Baker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Labour party are completely neglecting our duty to safeguard the national interest in the course of these negotiations. I can understand why he and those behind him would want the reports in the press to be  accurate. Fundamentally, they do not wish to leave the European Union. For them, good news is a disaster and bad news is a welcome confirmation of their world view. They await each set of employment figures with eager anticipation, only to have their hopes dashed when every set shows an ever-increasing number of people in work. They gleefully celebrate warnings from banks about the possibility of jobs moving to the continent, then they have to retreat when, a few months later, the banks assert the supremacy of the City of London. I do not blame them. They care passionately about remaining in the European Union and they want to overturn the result, but their strategy is becoming clear: demoralisation, delay and revocation. However, that is not what our parties stood for at the last election. Our parties were clear that we would respect the result of the referendum, and that requires the Government to deliver the best possible Brexit. That is what we are trying to do.
As I said in the opening words of my reply, when the time comes for a meaningful vote, the Government will ensure that the House is appropriately informed. However, we can see what some of this economic analysis could be worth. Let us take as an example the respected Bank of England. What institution could be more respected for its analysis? In August 2016, it made a quantitative forecast of the impact of Brexit, saying that exports would go down by 0.5%, but they went up 8.3%. It said that business investment would go down by 2%, but it went up by 1.7%. It said that housing investment would go down by 4.75%, but it went up by 5%. It said that employment growth would be zero—flat—but it went up to a new all-time high. The public deserve to see the national interest protected in these negotiations and to have a House of Commons of representatives who exhibit a healthy scepticism about economic forecasting.

Kenneth Clarke: It is perfectly obvious to everyone on both sides of the channel that if the United Kingdom leaves the largest and richest multinational free-trade area in the world and constructs new barriers by way of tariffs, customs or regulatory barriers between ourselves and that market, future generations will to some degree be poorer than they would otherwise have been. Does the Minister not accept that the Government should feel themselves under a duty to have the best-informed debate in this House and in the country on the possible consequences of likely scenarios now, when the Government are deciding what their ultimate policy is going to be, and continuously throughout the vital next 12 months when the final picture will start to emerge? Will the Minister stop pretending that this is something to do with defending our negotiating position or that it is some kind of perverse attempt to reverse the referendum decision, and accept that he has failed, actually, to protect the Government from political embarrassment?

Steven Baker: The public have made a profoundly important strategic choice, which is to leave the European Union. That means that the Government need to deliver free trade on a new basis: on the basis not of political integration but of a new deep and special partnership with the European Union. It is the Government’s intention to deliver the best possible and most frictionless trading with our friends in the European Union, which it is in  all our mutual interests to do. My right hon. and learned Friend talks about our duty, and he knows well that our duty is to look after the national interest of our constituents and of our country. That is exactly what we are seeking to do as we take these negotiations and this analysis forward.

Stephen Gethins: Just yesterday, I was commenting in this Chamber that the only constants in the Government’s Brexit position are chaos and confusion. Far be it from me to get in the way of the Government undermining themselves, or of Tory feuding, but this situation counts, and their bluff and bluster just will not cut it any more. It is striking that the figures that have been released are very similar to the figures that the Scottish Government produced on Scotland’s place in Europe. If the Scottish Government can produce their figures, why can this Government not do so?

Steven Baker: I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not copying the Scottish Government’s analysis and that we are doing our own homework. The Scottish National party’s position is clear: it wants to break up the United Kingdom and have a Scotland within the European Union. The actions that he describes must be understood in that context.

Philip Davies: We have here some London-centric remoaners—that could be a way of describing the shadow Brexit Secretary—in the civil service who did not want us to leave the European Union in the first place and put together some dodgy figures to back up their case. They still do not want us to leave the European Union and are regurgitating some dodgy figures to try to reverse the result of the referendum. Does my hon. Friend agree with that analysis? If so, does he agree that this really is not a news story?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend makes a point that is very much in line with his long-held views. I should reaffirm that I am proud of the officials with whom I work. Irrespective of how they voted, they are demonstrating commitment to delivering on the decision of the British people. The intention of our current analysis is to improve on what has gone before and, as I set out in my initial response, we recognise that there were flaws in the previous approach.

Hilary Benn: A lack of transparency is not in the national interest. On 6 December, I asked the Brexit Secretary,
“have the Government undertaken any impact assessments on the implications of leaving the EU for different sectors of the economy?”
He replied, “Not in sectors.” Now we learn that that work has been done, and it is reported that chemicals, clothing, manufacturing, food and drink, cars and retail will be the hardest hit sectors. Will the Minister offer the House an explanation for the discrepancy between what the Exiting the European Union Committee was told and what we now know?

Steven Baker: As I have explained, we have always  said that our economic analysis was continually evolving across a wide range of activities—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh, but what else would they expect but for the Government to work continually on a developing analysis? As I may not have said in my  opening remarks, I know that the Secretary of State only saw this particular document last night—I saw it this morning—and I think that that will explain the answers he has given.

Rachel Maclean: Does my hon. Friend agree that businesses up and down the country, including in Redditch, will wonder whose side the Labour party is on when its Members take great pleasure in forecasts that predict doom and gloom? People may conclude that Labour is not on the side of this country’s hard-working businesses and entrepreneurs.

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Now that the decision has been taken, the vast majority of right-thinking people in the United Kingdom will expect it to be carried through with a good heart as a matter of choice. Time and again, we see a foot-dragging reluctance from the Labour party, which increasingly seems not to be respecting the choices of its own voters.

Yvette Cooper: It is reported that the analysis shows that the north, the midlands and Northern Ireland will be hardest hit in all the scenarios. Will the Minister confirm that that is because all the scenarios assume that Britain is outside the customs union? Will he confirm, too, that the Government appear to have undertaken no analysis of the different customs union options and of the impact on our economy? Given how significant the situation is for northern manufacturing and for Northern Ireland and given that the CBI has said this is irresponsible and is letting down northern manufacturing, will he commit to conducting and publishing analysis before the customs Bill completes its passage through Parliament?

Steven Baker: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady because she has given me the opportunity to reassure her that there is economic growth under all the scenarios in the economic assessment. The only question is to what extent and how fast, but there is projected to be economic growth across a 15-year period in all the scenarios.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. Friend understand that many businesses in my constituency are already nervous about the apparently cavalier attitude of some Brexiteer opinion towards their continued success? Will he therefore confirm that the Government will seek to negotiate an arrangement and get a result that does not damage the long-term economic success of our country and the national interest of our people?

Steven Baker: I can give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The Government are not cavalier. It is precisely because we take our duties seriously that we are continuing to develop our economic analysis, and I can of course reassure him that we are seeking to establish a free trade agreement and other partnership arrangements that are of unprecedented scope and ambition.

Chris Leslie: For the Minister basically to excuse his not publishing the information because he has not yet had the chance to edit, twist or distort it or to redact the information within it is a total and utter disgrace. The public have a  right to know about their livelihoods and their futures, and it is deeply irresponsible and dishonest for the Government not to publish the information. It is a cover-up, pure and simple, and it stinks.

Steven Baker: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on going for the hardest possible hit that he can manage, but it is not good enough. The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear through his words and his actions that he does not accept the referendum result. It is perfectly clear that he is among those who wish to seek a revocation of the democratic decision of the British people, and he is acting in that spirit.

Desmond Swayne: As an antidote, will the Minister read Professor Minford’s work? Alternatively, he might just go to the cinema to see “Darkest Hour”.

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend. I can confirm that I will read Professor Minford’s work, and the transparency register will also show that I have met Professor Minford. I will continue to meet Professor Minford and to look at the work of Economists for Free Trade.

Tom Brake: As the Cabinet squabbles in the middle of these tough negotiations, the Minister has no right to talk about the national interest. He must stop treating parliamentarians like chumps. He knows, we know and this analysis confirms that Brexit will cause huge damage to British jobs and British families. Will the Government and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition now allow a vote on the deal so that the people can decide whether they want to pursue this damaging approach or to stay in the European Union?

Steven Baker: The right hon. Gentleman reminds me that I did not answer the other point of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne). I have been to see “Darkest Hour” and the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) does a good job of reminding me that some people do approach our current circumstances in an unnecessarily bleak spirit. I say to him once again that the economic analysis is clear that there is to be economic growth in all scenarios. I encourage him to go back to the report published by the Treasury Committee, on which I served, during the referendum campaign and look at the documented abuse of figures by the remain campaign. I urge him not to repeat that abuse of figures.

Antoinette Sandbach: According to this analysis, the car manufacturing, chemical and food sectors, all of which are vital for my constituency, will clearly be adversely affected. Quite frankly, Minister, I take exception to being told that it is not in the national interest for me to see a report that would allow me to best represent my constituents. Parliament needs access to the best possible information on which to base our decisions.

Steven Baker: I have great faith in my hon. Friend, and we of course appreciate the importance of cars, chemicals and food. As I said at the beginning of my response,  when the time approaches for us to have a meaningful vote in Parliament, we will put appropriate economic analysis before both Houses to assist the choices that they make. However, we do not expect the European Union to publish all its analysis in a transparent manner, and we do not propose to go into the negotiations having revealed all our thinking.

Kate Hoey: I wonder whether the Minister thinks that perhaps the person in the Whitehall establishment who leaked this document would be better off moving, and working in Brussels. Was the methodology used in this report, or whatever it is, the same methodology that said the country’s financial future would tank if we did not join the euro?

Steven Baker: We are carrying out the usual inquiries into who leaked the report. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that past economic predictions have been very poor, and poor for good reasons on which I would love to elaborate on another occasion. I have set out that particular critique of even the Bank of England’s forecasts, and she is absolutely right that, as I said earlier, we should have a healthy scepticism.

Bernard Jenkin: We would be in a strange position if Governments had to publish every bit of advice to Ministers and every bit of analysis that they profoundly believed to be wrong. The last Labour Government did not do that, and the Minister should resist publishing this analysis if he believes it is not in the national interest to do so. I also advise him that people are trying to divert the Government’s direction on Brexit—there is absolutely no doubt about it. Will he look into why this particular document was leaked on this particular day, the day that the withdrawal Bill has its first debate in the upper House?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, makes an important and authoritative point about the conduct of government. Opposition Members would do well to reflect on how they would wish to govern the country if, God forbid, the electorate should ever give them an opportunity to do so.
All of us in this House need to have an eye on the long-term functioning of our democracy and our constitution. With that in mind, I hear what my hon. Friend says. There is clearly a campaign to overturn the referendum result, and it can be seen at work in the media and in this House. We will certainly bear in mind what he says.

Seema Malhotra: The Minister says that this cross-departmental analysis has not been co-ordinated by his Department, but on that there appears to be some confusion. When the Brexit Secretary gave evidence to the Brexit Committee last week, I asked him whether his Department is co-ordinating the cross-departmental work on the sectoral impacts of no deal, and he said, “Yes.”
If there is indeed no deal, we would likely fall out on World Trade Organisation rules. Will the Minister confirm that in one of the scenarios outlined in the report—the   WTO option that is advocated by many Conservative Members—the impact of non-tariff barriers is the equivalent of a 10% tariff slapped across the economy?

Steven Baker: That was quite a long question. There are two particular scenarios that are not modelled in this analysis. One is the policy choices that the Prime Minister rightly set out in her Florence speech, and the other is exiting in the unfortunate, and we think unlikely, circumstance of not reaching an agreement and how one might take the right policy choices in the event of trading on WTO rules. We will continue to take this analysis forward, and I look forward to the day when we are able to present appropriate analysis to the House before the meaningful vote.

Peter Bone: Does the Minister recall, prior to the referendum, what became known as “Project Fear”? Everything was going to go wrong after the referendum if we voted to come out—something short of bubonic plague—but that did not happen. With those warnings, the British people still voted to come out, so of what relevance is another forecast now that predicts exactly the same as “Project Fear”?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I well remember “Project Fear” in all its manifestations. Most of us on the leave side thought at the time that those horror predictions would not come to pass after the vote and, happily, we have been proved correct. I look forward to continuing to prove economists wrong after they make horror story predictions.

Ben Bradshaw: Why have the Government assessed the impact of all the scenarios but not the one they say they want, the fantasy cake-and-eat-it one?

Steven Baker: I am grateful for that question, because I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we will continue to develop and expand our economic analysis. We cannot control the timing of leaks, and were we to have chosen to publish an analysis, as we will when we approach the meaningful vote, it will of course contain the relevant information.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is of course right that this analysis does not question the result of the referendum, nor does it model his desired scenario, but what it does show is that modelling a fully comprehensive free trade deal with the EU post-Brexit, combined with the benefits of new trade deals, shows a net effect on economic growth of 1.5%. Where does he hope a special and deep relationship will differ from a fully comprehensive free trade deal post-Brexit?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend may know that Michel Barnier tried to include financial services in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal, and we believe that we can go beyond what has been agreed in the past. The analysis does not include a comprehensive deal of the scope we would like to agree; it includes only an average based on past precedents. We believe that we can reasonably go further than we have before, and of course we are well apprised of the importance of financial services and of ensuring that the City flourishes.

Joanna Cherry: If the economic forecasts and impact assessments published to date have been so wrong, why do the Government not tell the British people what it is they want from the EU by way of a deal, cost it and publish the results? Why is that so difficult?

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out what we want in the Lancaster House and Florence speeches. We are heading down the path of successfully delivering on what the Government have said we wish to have.

Joanna Cherry: Cost it.

Steven Baker: We will continue to carry out a wide-ranging and developing programme of economic analysis, which will help to inform our negotiating position and our decisions.

William Wragg: Can my hon. Friend, the excellent Minister, name a single civil service forecast, leaked or otherwise, that has been accurate?

Steven Baker: No, I am not able to name an accurate forecast. They are always wrong, and wrong for good reasons. [Interruption.] Members are chatting at me from a sedentary position. My long-standing views on the flaws in the epistemology of the social sciences and the consequences for econometrics are well set out in various forums, and I encourage Members to go and have a look at them. I am happy to recommend a reading list.

Chuka Umunna: The Government are not protecting the interests of the British people but withholding information from them. The Minister keeps invoking the referendum, but of course that did not give us any indication of the form of Brexit that the public wish us to follow. Will he confirm that what the analysis shows is that the least worst option—staying in the single market and customs union—has been voluntarily taken off the table by the Prime Minister with no mandate whatsoever?

Steven Baker: I encourage Members to google the hon. Gentleman’s name on The Sun website. They will find a wonderful picture of him, during the referendum, standing next to a poster proclaiming that the leave campaign wanted to leave the single market. He made the point at the time—[Interruption.] He certainly did, and anyone can go and find it on The Sun website. The point was made at the time, and the public chose.
It would not be possible to honour the decision of the British people if we allow the European Union to set the UK’s tariffs and if we become people in a political purgatory of perpetual rule taking from the European Union without any democratic say. It is the desire of this Government that our country should continue to be a democracy. For that reason, we will leave the European economic area and the customs union.

David Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that our post-referendum experience illustrates the danger of publishing incomplete and inchoate economic analyses? We were told prior to the referendum by the  Treasury that we would enter immediate recession if we voted to leave. The International Monetary Fund told us that the economy would contract by as much as 9.5%. Both were made to look extremely foolish.

Steven Baker: My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and he might have added to that catalogue of failures of the economics profession the failure to see the financial crisis. It is time for economists to re-examine their methods, for the reasons I indicated earlier. I am grateful to him for putting those past failures on the record.

Heidi Alexander: Given that the leaked Government analysis confirms that, realistically, there are three ways that the UK might leave the EU, each with a very different impact on jobs, trade and livelihoods, why have MPs not been given a direct vote at the start of the process to determine what sort of Brexit the UK is pursuing? Is it not about time that we in this House are allowed to take back common sense and seek the sensible option of staying in the single market by staying in the European economic area and remaining part of a European customs union?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady is entirely wrong; the sensible and pragmatic way forward, which honours the result of the referendum and ensures that this is a democracy with an independent Parliament able to ensure that control is exercised over the laws of this country, is to carry forward my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s policy, as she has set out in Florence and in the Lancaster House speech.

Julian Lewis: Is it not about time we set up a charity called “Soothsayers Anonymous” for people who simply cannot kick the habit of predicting when conflicts are going to break out, when we are going to have opinion polls that are going to be accurate and when we are going to have economic forecasts regarding the EU that are going to be accurate, even though history has shown time and again that they are not worth the paper they are written on?

Steven Baker: That is a very good point, but I am not sure we will make it Government policy to do it.

Sylvia Hermon: The Minister will be well aware that Sinn Féin has already used the Brexit decision to agitate for a border poll. I say to the British Government that they need to be very careful to ensure that Sinn Féin does not use any more negative impact assessments to feed its narrative. In those circumstances, what guarantees can he offer the people of Northern Ireland that the economy will not suffer as a result of Brexit? We must make sure not to feed Sinn Féin’s narrative.

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady makes a sobering and important point, which the Government have heard. I say to her that in all scenarios in this economic analysis, there is economic growth—the question is only: how fast? It is this Government’s task to ensure we achieve the fastest GDP growth and indeed the fastest GDP growth per head, which is why we have brought forward a comprehensive programme on productivity. Of course we are most concerned to ensure the prosperity of the  people, not only of Northern Ireland, but of the whole of the island of Ireland and right across Europe. That is why it is in our mutual interest to agree a comprehensive and deep free trade agreement.

Stephen Crabb: Even though these forecasts do not look at the Government’s preferred outcome, does my hon. Friend not agree that the data they contain, however imperfectly, do underline the importance of building a bespoke deal around maintaining customs union-style arrangements and ensuring as great a level of access as possible to the single market?

Steven Baker: I agree with my right hon. Friend on most of his points, but, as I said in an earlier answer, we do not think remaining in the customs union, so that the European Union set our tariffs on imports, would be the right thing to do. We think that would be the wrong choice for the UK. It would prevent us from operating an independent trade policy and plugging ourselves into the rest of the world’s growth, where multiple authorities, including the European Commission, have admitted that 90% of the world’s growth will come from. So on that particular point I disagree with him, but on the rest of his arguments and, in particular, on the need, in our mutual interests, for a good-quality trade agreement, he is right and I agree.

Pat McFadden: Ministers keep using the excuse that it is in the national interest to withhold information about the economic impact of Brexit—that is on the days when they admit such information exists. I will tell them what is really not patriotic: pursuing a policy that will make our country poorer than it would otherwise be, in order to satisfy right-wing, nationalist ideology. So will the Minister desist from saying that it is in the national interest to withhold this information, given that the only interest it serves is that of Tory Ministers embarrassed by its contents?

Steven Baker: I simply do not accept the premises of the right hon. Gentleman’s question; he makes ludicrous suggestions. I consider myself to be an old English liberal and I think most of the Eurosceptics with whom I associate also consider themselves liberal in outlook, particularly on matters of trade and the economy. With that in mind, I cannot possibly accept his premise. The fact is that we are in a negotiation and no one seriously would expect us to go into—

Tom Brake: Wash your mouth out.

Steven Baker: The right hon. Gentleman says I should wash my mouth out, but I am happy to debate liberalism with him any time.
We are heading for an open, liberal, free trading future for the UK. Any suggestion of nationalism is quite wrong and quite ludicrous, and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) should retract.

John Bercow: The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) looks as though he has just consumed a very bitter lemon, but I hope he recovers.

Philip Hollobone: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that pro-remain Members of this House who represent constituencies that voted to leave leap on incomplete economic analysis and profess deep understanding of complex economic methodology, yet fail to wrap their minds around the simple arithmetic of the referendum, which was that 52% voted to leave?

Steven Baker: I must exercise some caution, Mr Speaker, because as you will know, Wycombe District, which is substantially large than the constituency of Wycombe, did express the other view. However, what I think we need to do is come together to unite around the result as a country, and to choose for ourselves not to leave the EU because we must or because we ought, but to leave the EU successfully because we choose to abide by the democratic decision of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Wera Hobhouse: How can we unite together when the Government are withholding information from the rest of the House?

Steven Baker: It is very difficult to answer the question of how we can unite together when certain Members of this House, including, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady, keep provoking as much division as possible. She represents a party claiming to be liberal and democratic, and which once offered a real referendum on Europe, but we have had a real referendum on Europe and it is time for her to get behind the result.

Marcus Jones: The gloomy pre-referendum Treasury forecasts led many of us to vote remain with a heavy heart. The public made their decision, and we stood on an election manifesto saying that we would follow through on that decision. Will the Minister tell me why we should believe part forecasts—these forecasts, which have apparently been published, are not complete—given that the initial information put out before the referendum was flawed?

Steven Baker: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and “Project Fear” was mentioned earlier. It is most unfortunate that one fundamental tactic always used throughout the long and sorry history of misrepresenting the true purpose of the EU has been to demoralise the public. It is time for each of us in this House to take a lead in going forward in a spirit of buoyancy and hope.

Luciana Berger: The Minister would not accept the premise of the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), but this morning we heard from the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who cast significant doubt on the Government’s own ability to forecast the impact of Brexit on jobs and growth. What assurances will the Minister give workers in my constituency, for example, those in the Jaguar Land Rover or Vauxhall supply chains, that Brexit will not fatally wound the manufacturing sector on Merseyside?

Steven Baker: As I believe the record will show, I have said multiple times that in all scenarios in this economic analysis growth is forecast. So it is good news for the hon. Lady and for the country that in all of the forecasts—in all of the circumstances of the economic analysis—growth is forecast. She brings up the issue of the supply chain, so I also say to her that we are of course apprised of the imperatives of complex international supply chains, not just between the UK and Europe, but around the whole world. In particular, I draw attention to provisions in the Union customs code for inward and outward processing rules, which should assist manufacturers in her constituency.

Richard Bacon: Were the economists involved in these forecasts the same ones who said we would lose half a million jobs if people voted for Brexit? Since the referendum we have, in fact, gained 350,000 jobs.

Steven Baker: I am not able to give my hon. Friend exactly that information, but perhaps some of the economists are the same ones. In my experience, civil servants, at all levels, dutifully carry out the instructions of the Government, and I am sure they are doing that in this case.

Stephen Doughty: It might surprise the Minister to learn that I have read a number of his articles, and there is much in them that I disagree with. He talks a lot about liberty, accountability, transparency and democracy, but he does not seem to like any of those principles when they are applied to him and his Government, and when they shed light on the reckless course that this Government are pursuing. If they have not done a full, comprehensive analysis, they are incompetent. If they have done it, we should see it.

Steven Baker: As I announced at the beginning of my initial response, the Government will make available to both Houses of Parliament the appropriate economic analysis before we made a decision on the meaningful vote.

Heidi Allen: No one in this House should dismiss the referendum result—that would be overstepping the mark—but it is our role, as the Government have accepted, to scrutinise the deal and ensure that it is the very best it can be for all our citizens, regardless of how, or indeed whether, they voted in the referendum. The impact assessments were made available to parliamentarians in absolute confidentiality, and I went to see them. I fail to see why that same process cannot be extended for this most recent and any further analysis. This is a one-time deal only, and I for one owe it to my constituents to prove to them that I have exercised full scrutiny.

Steven Baker: I cannot accept the premise of my hon. Friend’s question. We have gone to and fro in the House about the meaning of the term “impact assessments”. What was made available to colleagues were sectoral analyses. I refer my hon. Friend both to the written ministerial statement setting out how meaningful votes will happen at the end of the process and to my previous remarks about the need to protect the integrity of our negotiating position. We will ensure that, when we reach  the end of the negotiating period, parliamentarians are able to access appropriate economic analysis when we all take that important decision.

Wes Streeting: Last week, I asked the Treasury’s permanent secretary whether he could confirm that just a single one of the Government’s scenarios for a deal post-Brexit would lead to a better economic deal and outcome than what we have as members of the single market and customs union. He did not seem able to answer. Is not the truth that no such model exists? Has it not been confirmed today that, as a result of the Government’s dogmatic determination to pull us out of the single market and the customs union, it will not be my city, London, that is most affected, or indeed the industries in the City of London that are worst affected, but the key sectors of the economy right across the UK, with the impact felt worst in the west midlands, the north-east and Northern Ireland? How on earth could that possibly be in the national interest?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman said that there is no such model; the truth is that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) referred to a model earlier. Economists for Free Trade are very clear about their modelling. Other models are available—at the time of the referendum, Open Europe did some modelling and found that the effect could be plus or minus 2%. The truth is that there are profound uncertainties facing not just the United Kingdom in this negotiation but all economies in the world. All face three big issues: the growth of technology; a new phase in globalisation; and, of course, the continuing aftermath of the financial crisis which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, has left interest rates at levels the Governor of the Bank of England has described as extraordinary if not emergency. Those three issues mean that all economies are on highly uncertain paths. The Government will navigate their way through the future with confidence and boldness.

Charlie Elphicke: Is the Minister aware that in the past 40 years the European Union’s share of global GDP has fallen from 30% to just 15% and that 90% of future world economic growth is going to come from outside Europe? Does he agree that the future is not regional relative decline; the future is global?

Steven Baker: I do agree, and my hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We need to make sure that this country is well positioned. He refers to the previous era of globalisation and particularly the emergence of China. The United Kingdom’s task is to take the right strategic decisions so that we can be plugged in not only to Asia but, I very much hope, to an emerging Africa, Latin America and the whole world, and so that so we can participate on the basis of technologies that were unimaginable at the beginning of the EU’s life, not least the internet, inexpensive air travel and containerised shipping. Those three things have transformed our world for the better, and I hope and expect, as I am sure my hon. Friend does, that in future, over the course of our lifetimes, the world will improve in ways that we cannot yet imagine.

Emma Reynolds: We have learned today that the Government’s own analysis suggests that the economy will grow by less than 5% in the case of a UK-EU trade deal. That is people’s jobs and livelihoods. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s negotiating position has been decided not on the basis of the economic evidence but on ideology alone?

Steven Baker: Let us not pretend that there is no ideology among those who wish to remain in the European Union, even at the cost of overturning a democratic decision, remaining in the EEA and surrendering democratic control and power. The figure to which the hon. Lady referred is wrong—it is not as she stated—but I do not propose now to walk through what is in the analysis which, as I have said, is currently a provisional draft and is not yet Government policy.

Simon Clarke: On Friday, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was on Teesside to set up an optimistic free-trading vision for the UK after we leave the EU. Given that all estimates have consistently underestimated our economy, surely it is time to just get on with the job.

Steven Baker: It is time to get on with the job. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for their brilliant work agitating for free trade zones, which I believe should be an important part of the Government’s consideration.

Alison McGovern: The Minister is clearly making himself out to be a bit of a philosopher today, so I say to him that surely it is the mark of a democracy that those of us who take different sides do not question each other’s patriotism. If he does not trust the forecasts, will he take the sensible decision—like the one taken by the previous Chancellor, George Osborne—to get them out of the Treasury and say to the Office for Budget Responsibility, “You get the forecast done by the time of the spring statement”? Then we can all see what the truth is.

Steven Baker: I have been careful not to use the word “patriotism” and not to question anyone’s, but the voters of the United Kingdom are entitled to look at the words and actions of their parliamentarians and ask what they are trying to achieve. Are they committed to adhering to the referendum result? Are they doing so with a spirit of confidence and boldness, and with buoyancy and hope, or are they trying to demoralise the public and overturn the result through delay and revocation? The hon. Lady should think very carefully about what her voters—and, indeed, all our voters—will think about our actions. I hope she will commit to carrying through their democratic decision.

Richard Drax: It is in the national interest to get the best deal we possibly can. Does my hon. Friend agree that to do that we have to keep our cards close to our chest? These are tough negotiations, and to expose the goods and the bads in such negotiations plays right into the hands of an organisation that, let us face it, does not want us to leave anyway.

Steven Baker: I think the EU’s willingness to see us leave is increasing by the day as we go through this process. It is important that the House knows that key figures throughout the EU pay close attention to our newspaper headlines, so it is important and incumbent on us all to remain committed, in that spirit of buoyancy and hope, to carrying through the referendum result.

Sammy Wilson: We have been here before, because the same gloom-laden forecasts were made before the referendum and none of them were anywhere near the mark. Does the Minister agree that these long-term forecasts are as useful for predicting future economic performance as newspaper horoscopes? More importantly, will he assure us that despite the hysteria from the Opposition Benches, the Government will not be distracted from honouring their commitment to deliver the United Kingdom out of the single market and the customs union?

Steven Baker: The hon. Gentleman’s question reminds me of the great economist Galbraith who said, if I recall correctly, that the only purpose of economic forecasting was to make astrology look respectable. There is a great deal of truth in that.

Jeremy Lefroy: Another great economist, J. M. Keynes, said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” Will my hon. Friend confirm that a deep and special partnership must include services as well as goods, because services account for 80% of our economy, and that any deal that did not include all services would not be in the interests of the United Kingdom?

Steven Baker: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of services, but I go further. It  is extremely important that our ambassador to the World Trade Organisation, Julian Braithwaite, is chairing  the relevant committee on services. It is in the UK’s and, indeed, the world’s interests that we take part in a global liberalisation of services in trade. That is key to unlocking the UK’s prosperity and, indeed, to unlocking Governments’ capacity to meet the commitments that they have entered into for their populations.

Andrew Slaughter: My constituents, many of whom are former Conservative voters, cannot understand why any Government would adopt policies that they knew would make them or the country worse off. The Minister’s tactic today is to rubbish his own commissioned analyses because they show that leaving the EU will be an economic disaster, to a greater or lesser extent. If he believes in Brexit at any cost, will he at least have the honesty to say so?

Steven Baker: That is simply not the case. As I have not hesitated to say several times, the economic analysis does not show the country being worse off; it shows the country being better off under all circumstances. It shows GDP growing—

Paul Blomfield: Nonsense!

Steven Baker: The shadow Minister says it is nonsense, but I can assure him that it is not. The economic analysis shows GDP increasing in all circumstances.  The point of the Government’s policy must be to carry through faithfully the decision of the British people and to do so in a way that proves these doom-mongers and naysayers wrong.

Kevin Foster: In these negotiations, the UK is on one side, and 27 other Governments and the EU are on the other. Will my hon. Friend say how many of those Governments, as well as the EU itself, have confirmed that they will publish the entirety of their internal analysis on each option that they might be prepared to offer?

Steven Baker: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I am not aware that any of them is prepared to reveal that information, and he was absolutely right to mention it. I can assure him that I have given instructions to our teams to analyse the interests  of other member states simply for the purpose of demonstrating that it is in our mutual interests to conclude a deep and special partnership.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: As there is so much noise, I will call someone who has been behaving in a statesperson-like manner. I call Fiona Onasanya.

Fiona Onasanya: I refute the accusation that we do not accept what our constituents have voted for. In June, they were asked a simple question, which was something like this: would you like a divorce, yes or no? They answered that question, but they did not know who would have the children, who would get the house, and how the assets would be split. Will Ministers give us the detail of the impact analysis that has been done, so that we can advise our constituents on how leaving will affect them?

Steven Baker: The hon. Lady makes a very interesting point, but I slightly regret her metaphor. We need to face up to the fact that the British public have rejected the idea of delivering free trade through political integration. Our task is to rise to the challenge of this new decision in strategic political economy and deliver free trade, which provides for democratic control of political power. I did listen carefully to what she said.

Simon Hoare: It is with growing admiration that I listen to the pronouncements of the Mystic Megs, and indeed the Mystic Moggs, who, with near papal infallibility, pronounce this, that or the other as being an absolute certainty. I agree with the Minister when he says that this is an uncertain process. All my constituents and businesses in North Dorset want to hear from the Minister is that he and the Government are committed to a pragmatic, common-sense solution to this issue that we are facing, to ensure economic growth, stability in jobs and prosperity in Dorset.

Steven Baker: As I said in an earlier answer, I believe that that pragmatic way forward is as set out by our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the Lancaster House and the Florence speeches, and I am grateful to my  hon. Friend for underlining the fact that it is the right way forward.

Barry Sheerman: How dare the Minister suggest to my constituents that ignorance is bliss! My constituents were misled by the lies on the side of the Brexit bus. My constituents are now being deprived of the information that suggests that, up and down the north of England and in Yorkshire in particular, jobs and employment will plunge if we go out on the worst terms. Will he apologise to my constituents for misleading them?

Steven Baker: No, I will not. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to listen to the arguments that I have made and to the answers that I have given. In all scenarios in this analysis, economic growth increases. He talks about people being misled in the referendum campaign; there were two campaigns and both are susceptible to criticism. I encourage him to look at the Treasury Committee’s report, which criticised the remain campaign quite heavily; otherwise, I should not have been able to sign up to it.

Vicky Ford: In my constituency, more than 2,000 people work in insurance. Britain is home to the world’s largest insurance market, and many European companies need access to our market. Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of both Britain and Europe to seek a much deeper and more modern trade relationship than the EU has with any other third country?

Steven Baker: I do agree with my hon. Friend. The United Kingdom has a comparative advantage in insurance, as it does in so many financial services. As I indicated earlier, it is in the interests of Europe and the world that we should be able to take that comparative advantage and put it to the service of the whole world.

Albert Owen: Like that of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), who is no longer in his place, my constituency is the gateway to Britain from the Republic of Ireland and on the frontline of Brexit. Businesses that I have spoken to in the past few weeks and months want, because of the uncertainty, an analysis of what Brexit will mean for them specifically. Will the Minister tell the House when he was intending to share this information with local authorities, devolved Administration and, indeed, their MP who needs to keep them informed?

Steven Baker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has been in contact with the Port of Holyhead, and we will continue our programme of engagement, well apprised of the need to keep talking to businesses, particularly those that provide our important infrastructure, such as the port in his constituency. He asked me when: I have said that, before the meaningful vote, we will make appropriate economic analysis available to the House.

Huw Merriman: During referendum week, I was fortunate to speak to 25 schools, taking a neutral position. I visited two schools in the past fortnight, and the vast majority of the students, who would probably have voted to remain, wanted us to get on with job rather than unpick it. Does the Minister agree that it is essential that we respect the ballot box system that elected us, engage more with our constituents and get on with the job in hand?

Steven Baker: I do agree with my hon. Friend. I particularly lament the way that so much of the demoralisation that has taken place has been aimed at young people. It is precisely because we are concerned for their future that we want to deliver a successful partnership with the European Union as we turn out to take advantage of that growth, 90% of which will come from the rest of the world. It is their future that we are concerned about, and it is their future that led people like me to campaign for leave on the basis of upholding their democratic choice to choose a Government and influence its policies.

Jonathan Edwards: These leaked figures indicate and expose the damage that will be caused by a Brexit outside the single market and the customs union. Is it not the case that the greatest failure of this Parliament, on the biggest issue of our time, and despite the damage that it will do to people’s livelihoods and standards of living, is that the British Government and the Labour Opposition share the exact same position?

Steven Baker: As I have already said, all scenarios in this analysis show growth. The analysis is heavily caveated with the profound uncertainties that exist, not only for the UK and Europe but for the world. In that context, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the answers that I have given today.

Michael Tomlinson: Following directly on from that, is it not right that we should approach such economic modelling with caution? History has proven to be wrong and flawed in the past. The information is incomplete. Does my hon. Friend, and philosopher longstanding, look forward to proving this analysis wrong as well?

Steven Baker: I would agitate for a healthy scepticism about the use of mathematical economics, and we should go forward in that spirit.

Lilian Greenwood: What duty does the Minister owe to the British people, including my constituents, if not to tell the truth about the choices in the negotiations before us and what they will mean for jobs and businesses in Nottingham?

Steven Baker: Over the long course of the history of the European Union, and indeed of the referendum campaign, people have not shown a particular willingness on a very wide scale to engage in the details of trade policy. This is an area where they do expect the Government—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady says something about our duty. Our duty is to get on with the job that the people have given us to do not only in answering the referendum question telling us that they wish to leave the EU, but in voting at the general election for a range of parties, all of which, including her own, said that we should leave the European Union. And to leave the European Union, we need to leave the customs union and the European economic area and restore democratic control and political power, and that is what we will do; that is our duty.

Tom Pursglove: The naysayers who are talking this up are some of the same people who said that on 24 June we would drop off a cliff, exports would  be down, foreign direct investment would be down, and jobs would be lost—the list goes on—but the opposite is true. Does my hon. Friend agree that it will not always be plain sailing—there will be difficulties along the way—but the end destination is worth getting to, and people up and down this country in increasing numbers are just saying, “Get on with it”?

Steven Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend that we do need to get on with it, and, yes, the end destination is worth getting to, although, hopefully, there will be no end to this journey. We will journey out into a new life of prosperity and self-government, which will give us the dignity of self-control.

Toby Perkins: First, let me draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests concerning Weightron Bilanciai.
I have here a letter sent by the European Commission, which was received by British manufacturing firms, telling them that after Brexit all products certified for use by UK certifiers will no longer be eligible for sale in the EU. Those companies are now rushing to get their entire product range recertified, often at three times the cost, from European certifying authorities. What advice do the Government give to UK manufacturing firms that have products certified in the UK about what they should do in the run-up to Brexit and the need for recertification?

Steven Baker: I expect us to conclude a free trade agreement with the European Union that includes agreements in relation to product conformity. I hope that we will make rapid progress through these negotiations now that we have made sufficient progress and are moving on to the next stage. I very much hope that everyone in this country, including manufacturers, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, will be given an accelerated degree of certainty as we progress through the negotiations.

Mike Wood: Is my hon. Friend familiar with the PwC analysis that suggests that the UK could be the fastest growing economy in the G7 between Brexit and 2050?

Steven Baker: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out.

Jo Platt: The Minister will be aware that I have submitted 23 questions to his Department asking what assessments the Government have undertaken—all to ensure that businesses and workers in my area are safeguarded. The Government have repeatedly refused to release even the titles of these assessments, so will the Minister confirm how many impact studies the Government have conducted and for how long he expects Members to have access to these documents before we vote on the final Brexit deal?

Steven Baker: I think that the documents that we put out and discussed at great length continue to be available to colleagues. As I have said, we will lay before both Houses the appropriate economic analysis before the decision is taken.

Drew Hendry: Mr Speaker, you will recall from this morning that the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) ducked my question on the impact of these assessments on small businesses, so I will try again. Leaked or not, if the Minister is willing to be disparaging about his own civil servants who are producing his own reports, does he also reject the reports from the University of St Andrews that point out that small business will be hit by lower levels of investment and access to finance, lower growth and reduced product development opportunities?

Steven Baker: I will make two points. First, as far as I recall, I have never been disparaging about civil servants with whom I have worked; it is quite the reverse. What  I have been disparaging about is method in the economic sciences. That is quite different. Secondly, all the circumstances in this analysis predict growth. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave earlier, pointing out all the flaws in the predictions of the Bank of England. I ask him to start working out how he can play his part in leading this country forward with a spring in its step.

Matt Western: I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In the past week, Mark Carney and Jaguar Land Rover and have blamed Brexit on the fall in growth and business respectively. For Jaguar Land Rover, this is resulting in prolonged shutdowns and declining production. This is happening now. Will the Minister accept the reality of what is happening and publish the Government’s analysis?

Steven Baker: I accept that Jaguar Land Rover does not sell as many cars as I should like it to. I consider it this Government’s duty to enter into trading arrangements with the whole world that facilitate the company’s complete success. I look forward to working to do just that with all the strength we can muster.

Diana R. Johnson: If work has been done on the regional impact of different Brexit scenarios, is not it in the national interest for regional devolved bodies and local councils to have this information, so that they can make appropriate plans for the future?

Steven Baker: We will continue our programme of engagements with the devolved Administrations and the English regions. What we will not do is publish or reveal information we consider to be prejudicial to their interests and the national interest or that would harm our negotiations.

Alex Cunningham: The information in today’s Government report directly reflects what industries and businesses on Teesside have been saying for months—that they will suffer if the Government totally abandon the single market and the customs union. Ministers may choose to ignore the reports, but will they please listen to what the industrialists and the businesspeople are saying? The Government need to be  open and honest about the impacts and provide clarity on how these businesses can trade successfully after Brexit.

Steven Baker: The Secretary of State went the region only last week to make an important speech about the implementation period, precisely because we understand the importance of industries and businesses there. There is no question of our ignoring analysis. We are conducting the analysis to inform our position, as I have tirelessly set out.

Anna McMorrin: This is about the UK Government doing their job, and they have spectacularly failed to do that. This leaked paper talks about the impact of Brexit on different areas of the UK, despite the Government telling devolved Governments and Administrations that they have no such information. The Minister failed to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), so when will this information be shared with the devolved Administrations, so that they can make decisions on behalf of the people they represent and govern?

Steven Baker: We will make information available once we are through the negotiation, so that we do not end up putting ourselves in the position of publishing information that is prejudicial to the national interest. I would expect that information to be published—and, in particular, to be made available to both Houses of Parliament—once the negotiations have concluded and before the meaningful vote.

Madeleine Moon: Why do this Conservative Government not trust the voters of Bridgend, many of whom rely on the Ford engine plant for their jobs? It is acknowledged that car manufacturing will be one of the hardest-hit areas. The Minister says that there is going to be growth. In that case, let the people of Bridgend know where the growth is going to be and what better growth could be achieved by staying in the single market. Is he more interested in healing the wounds within the Conservative party than looking after the people of Bridgend?

Steven Baker: I am interested in healing the wounds across the whole country, getting people to unite behind a democratic decision and thus taking it forward. It is precisely because we do trust the voters that we want not only to carry through the referendum result, but to ensure our parliamentary independence, so that the voters can materially affect a Government’s policy choices.

Martin Whitfield: I am concerned about some of the recent answers. Will the Minister confirm what damage will happen to the UK’s negotiating position if this analysis is shared with the devolved Governments?

Steven Baker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can easily find a wide range of literature that will explain how to do a negotiation. But what one does not do when going into a negotiation is to place one’s cards face up on the table, and we are not going to do that.

Jo Platt: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I will take this point of order now, as I believe it relates to the subject matter that we have been discussing.

Jo Platt: Further to the question that I have just asked, I have tabled 23 written questions to the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Treasury over the past six weeks, asking for the titles of any assessments that the Government had conducted on the impact of our withdrawal from the European Union. However, none of these questions has been adequately answered. What I have received has been vague; my questions have often been ignored; and Ministers have not provided me with the information I requested. Mr Speaker, without any obvious avenue to take, I seek your guidance on how I can secure an answer from Ministers to the questions I have asked in order for me to ascertain the number of assessments the Government have undertaken and their titles.

John Bercow: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her intended point of order, although I am not at all sure that I can offer her much satisfaction or comfort. The content of ministerial answers to parliamentary questions is the responsibility of the Minister concerned. It is not, and cannot be, a matter for the Chair. I understand her dissatisfaction with the answers that she has received. I am afraid that it is not uncommon for answers from successive Governments of different complexions to fail to engage—either fully or, in some cases, at all—with the question in the view of the recipient of the answer, or, indeed, to do so only vaguely. However, I advise the hon. Lady to persist and to discuss with the Table Office what other avenues she might pursue.
I must emphasise, on the basis of some little experience in the House, the merits of quantity, persistence and, above all, repetition. Members must—if I may very politely say so—keep at it. I remember one year tabling, I think, a little under 4,000 questions, which somewhat irritated Ministers at the time, although that caused me no concern whatever. I was simply concerned to table the questions that mattered to me. If that caused some inconvenience to other people, it was really beside the point. Democracy costs.
On whether Members will be granted access to analytical studies on the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU ahead of any vote on the final deal, I do not know the answer to that question beyond what we have heard from the Minister today, and the Minister has said some things today on which Members can reflect. If the hon. Lady wants to put further questions on this matter to Ministers, it is open to her to do so.
On whether it is in order for Ministers or Departments to show information to journalists before providing it to the House, I would say that although this is not a matter of order, it would certainly represent a discourtesy to  Members, and I would deprecate that. I hope that Ministers will reflect on the matter and consider what information should be provided to the House on this important matter at all stages. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Lady.

Neil Coyle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Does it relate to the matters we have just been discussing?

Neil Coyle: indicated assent.

John Bercow: Very well, I will take it. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) will just have to be patient for a short period.

Neil Coyle: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The ministerial code of practice outlines seven principles of public life, one of which is on openness. It states specifically:
“Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.”
It sounds as though there is certainly a discrepancy between what was said to the Select Committee in December and what we have heard over the past couple of days and some things that the Minister has said today. What course of action is open to a Member who wishes to pursue the matter at stake if the Secretary of State or a Minister has not provided information that should be available to my constituents and businesses who are deeply affected by it?

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will make a number of points briefly in response. First, the ministerial code to which he refers is certainly a very important document, but compliance or non-compliance with it is not adjudicated on by the Chair; that is a matter for others.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman inquires on what recourse he has if he believes that there is a discrepancy. The short answer is that he can table a question or, indeed, a series of questions on the matter, applying his little grey cells to the formation of such inquiries as he thinks appropriate.
Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman referenced evidence to the Select Committee. He will have heard his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chair of the Brexit Committee, who asked a question on this matter early in the exchanges. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues can pursue the matter if they so wish. They have a track record of doing so on previous occasions and might choose to do so on this occasion. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

PIP BACK PAYMENTS

Marsha de Cordova: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to make a statement on the process and timetable for the personal independence payment back payments.

Sarah Newton: As a result of our decision not to appeal the recent PIP judicial review judgment, we informed the House via a written statement and in a response to a parliamentary question that we will be carrying out an administrative exercise to identify claimants who may now be eligible for more support from PIP. The Secretary of State took the decision less than three weeks ago. As previously said, we will be working with Mind—experts in the field—and doing things as sympathetically and effectively as possible. While efficiency is important, I cannot stress enough that I want the appropriate scrutiny and complete accuracy to be applied to this exercise, so it will not be rushed.
This exercise will include screening the existing PIP caseload of some 1.6 million people to identify the group who may benefit, but the vast majority of claimants will not be affected. As the Secretary of State said last week, we currently estimate that up to 220,000 people will be affected by the judgment. For the group of people who may be affected, we will undertake a detailed review of their applications and awards. We will write to the individuals affected, and all payments will be back-dated to the effective date in each individual claim. There will be no—I repeat, no—face-to-face reassessments of awards. DWP case managers will be conducting a review of the existing information we hold, with a view to establishing whether claimants are entitled to more. If case managers need more information to make a decision, they will contact the claimant and/or their doctor.
I am sure you will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this is a complex exercise, and we need to undertake testing to ensure that we implement it safely. We therefore do not yet have an estimate of how long it will take. Obviously, we will keep the House updated on our progress in this exercise. Based on preliminary calculations, we estimate that the overall costs of implementing the judgment could be up to £3.7 billion by 2022-23. However, this number is highly likely to change as we work through all the impacted cases.

Marsha de Cordova: I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question.
Following the written statement of 19 January and last week’s urgent question, yesterday we discovered in an answer to a written question that the Government will be reconsidering approximately 1.6 million PIP claims—effectively, everyone currently in receipt of PIP. However, no timetable was issued or detail provided for this process. We know that 55% of people with mental health conditions transferring from disability living allowance to PIP receive a lower award or no award at all. As the High Court found, the Government’s regulations are highly discriminatory.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State and the Minister’s Department have finally seen sense. However, there are a number of questions that the Minister must  answer. By what date will the Department have changed the PIP assessment guide, so that she can implement the judgment? How quickly thereafter will the Department be able to identify affected claimants? Is her Department prioritising the PIP claims it is re-examining? If so, will she publish the prioritisation criteria? By what date will all 1.6 million PIP claims have been reviewed? Will it be weeks; will it be months; or will it be years? Do the 1.6 million claims to be reviewed include those that scored zero points and were not awarded PIP? Will there be an appeals process for the PIP claimants not contacted by the Department who believe that they should receive back payments? Will the Department compensate claimants who have fallen into debt and accrued interest charges? After the equality assessment was published in February 2017, the estimated number to receive the higher rate of PIP went up to 164,000, and it is now 220,000. Will the Minister publish an updated assessment? What assessment has she made of the administrative costs to her Department of undertaking this complex exercise of a considerable scale?
This mess is one of the Government’s own making. It is a clear example to this Government of the dangers of seeking to undermine both the independent judiciary and the House of Commons.

Sarah Newton: It is absolutely not true to say that we are trying to undermine the independent judiciary, because we have accepted the findings of the appeal and are now going to painstakingly, carefully and safely implement the findings. It is incredibly important for our democracy that we have an independent judiciary, and we stand by that.
The hon. Lady asked a number of questions. First, for clarification, the information that was provided in response to the written parliamentary question was absolutely the same as that given at this Dispatch Box by the Secretary of State last week and that contained in the written statement.
Moving on to some of the hon. Lady’s more detailed questions, she mentioned the updating of the PIP assessment guide. She is absolutely right: that is the starting point to making sure that we properly and thoroughly implement the recommendations of the appeal. I am delighted to say that Paul Farmer of Mind has agreed to work very closely with us to get that right. I have spoken to Paul Gray, who has undertaken the independent reviews of PIP, and he has also offered his help. I recently met a broad range of our PIP stakeholders and invited them to share their expertise.
As I said in my previous response, it is incredibly important to me that we get this right. The exercise will be complex and, to carry it out accurately and safely, we want to ensure that stakeholders and experts are involved. As a result, I cannot set out a timetable at this stage, but I can reassure all hon. Members that we are approaching this with a great deal of vigour and will ensure we do it as soon as possible. We have already started to recruit more people at DWP to help with the PIP review.
We want to discuss the prioritisation of the review of PIP claimants very carefully with our stakeholders to ensure that the process is fair, transparent and open. We will be reviewing people who had zero points in their original claim. We are currently considering the best way to handle an appeals process.
Of course, I will update the House regularly. The Secretary of State said that she would do that from this very Dispatch Box last week. We have oral questions every six weeks, so there are plenty of opportunities for Members to ask us about the progress we are making in this very important work.

Desmond Swayne: What impact, if any, will this effort have on the processing of new claims?

Sarah Newton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that important question. I want to reassure him that it is very important to me that the progress we have seen in making timely and good decisions on PIP continues. Our customers—our claimants—are very important to us in the DWP, and we want them to have a really good experience. I am determined to ensure that the progress we have made continues and that there are no delays for people applying for PIP.

Deidre Brock: I find it shameful and depressing that it took a court case to drag this Government back to the edge of decency, and I find the money wasted on legal proceedings abhorrent. However, since they are now at the edge of decency, may I urge the Government to take a few more steps? Will the Secretary of State apologise to the victims of the Government’s actions? I appreciate that she is new in her post, but this is important. Will she also apologise to the families of those who have taken their own lives as a result of the Government’s benefits policy? Will she confirm that she is now undertaking to restore some semblance of dignity to this policy area by reviewing all PIP cases where benefits have been stopped or reduced, rather than just those involving mental health? Will she undertake to come back to the Chamber in the very near future with a plan to start repairing some of the damage that has been done? One month should be sufficient time to get that rolling.

Sarah Newton: It is with deep regret that I hear the hon. Lady making such appalling and unsubstantiated claims about people committing suicide as a result of this. All of us in this House have a duty to be very mindful of the language and evidence we use to make such assertions. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in society, and it is shameful when Members deliberately misuse data.
I am pleased to have this opportunity—[Interruption.] Listen, the data to which the hon. Lady is referring is often misquoted, and it comes from the adult psychiatric morbidity survey. The deputy chief medical officer, Professor Gina Radford, has said that the adult psychiatric morbidity survey does not show any causal link between being on benefits and suicidal thoughts or behaviour. The survey findings indicate certain associations, but they do not indicate causality. The hon. Lady might not want to take my word for it, but is she seriously doubting the word of the deputy chief medical officer?

Heidi Allen: I am very pleased that the Secretary of State has decided to accept this ruling from the Court and that the Minister has today confirmed that there will be no face-to-face  reassessments—that is absolutely right. I am also greatly encouraged that the Minister will be working with Mind, Paul Gray and other knowledgeable people to rectify the situation. Might she continue to work with them on an ongoing basis to see what other improvements can be made to PIP? The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, is about to publish its recommendations. I believe that a fundamental overhaul of the PIP process is required, but a number of very small things could be done, such as introducing videoed assessments, that would make a huge difference to how claimants feel about the process.

Sarah Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for the invaluable work that she and other members of the Work and Pensions Committee do. I look forward to receiving the Committee’s recommendations and will give them careful consideration.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that I believe in continuous improvement. I am very grateful for the constructive working relationship that I have with many disability rights organisations and charities that support disabled people, and for the time they give to my PIP stakeholder group. We are about to set up panels of claimants of both employment and support allowance and PIP so that we further engage with claimants themselves. Of course, we undertake proper independent customer satisfaction surveys to ensure that we take every opportunity to improve the claimant experience.

Stephen Timms: The Minister has told the House that all 1.6 million existing claimants will have their cases reviewed. I am grateful to her for adding that those who had zero points, and therefore did not get PIP, will also be included in the review. Will she confirm that the 180,000 people who used to be on disability living allowance and are no longer receiving benefit will be included? In total, on top of the 1.6 million, how many cases does she expect to review?

Sarah Newton: As all Members will know, people have been going through a managed process of transferring from disability living allowance to PIP. We will be looking at people who have gone through the PIP assessment process. Just over half of people on disability living allowance have gone through the managed process to PIP. There are still people on DLA who are yet to go through the process, but we are taking on board all the findings of the appeal and improving the process to ensure that we make the right decision the first time. That is really important to us and to claimants.

Justin Tomlinson: This is a significant and important announcement. Will the Minister give a clear commitment on continuing to work with stakeholders and charities not only to learn the lessons, but to help them to communicate with all their members so that they can be kept up to date with that work?

Sarah Newton: When my hon. Friend held my position, he did a really good job of engaging with stakeholders, and I am building on that legacy. It is very important that we take on board their concerns and communicate with them frequently so that they can provide reassurance and information to their beneficiaries.

Pat McFadden: The system is in fundamental need of review. My constituent Martin Wright suffered a terrible life-changing accident at work several years ago. Despite that, he has been reassessed three times in three years and has now had his payments reduced. We will take Martin’s case to appeal, and I have to tell the Minister that every single case from my constituency office that we have taken to appeal in the past year has been overturned. Does that not show that this system is broken, inhumane at times, and in urgent need of fundamental change?

Sarah Newton: Of course I do not like to hear of individual cases when things have not worked out as we would like them to. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to meet me to discuss his constituent’s case, I would be very happy to do so. I hold meetings twice a month so that Members or their caseworkers can come along and meet my officials to review such cases.
It is worth setting all we are doing in context. We have made 2.9 million—I repeat, 2.9 million—PIP assessments, and 8% of those go to appeal, of which 4% are upheld, so the vast majority of people are getting the benefits to which they are richly entitled. If we look at the claimant work we do—the customer satisfaction surveys—we find that most people are satisfied with the process. Of course, until we have no appeals and 100% satisfaction rates, we will constantly be seeking to improve the situation, but the facts do speak for themselves.

Philip Hollobone: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her response to the urgent question and ask her whether she will be kind enough to check my understanding of the figures? I think she said that there are 1.6 million PIP claimants and that she expected just over 200,000 to have their assessments changed—improved. It therefore seems to me that the 1.4 million people who will not see a change in their benefit will have had their expectations raised by this announcement. How will the Minister manage those expectations?

Sarah Newton: The Secretary of State has made it clear at the Dispatch Box that the figure is about 220,000 people. Some of the things that some Members of this place have said in the media are very disappointing, having both scared people and raised false hope.

Diana R. Johnson: May I make one suggestion to the Minister about how she could do the decent and humane thing? She should passport all those affected by the contaminated blood scandal—having contracted HIV and hepatitis C—who were previously in receipt of DLA through to PIP at the higher rate. It should be a blanket passport.

Sarah Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is really important that we remember what PIP is. It is a very modern, dynamic benefit, and it treats with parity of esteem physical and mental health and disabilities. No two people are the same and no two people’s needs are the same, so it is a person-centred benefit. It is really important that we remember that.

Helen Whately: I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Court’s judgment and the Minister’s careful work to improve  PIP assessments, including by looking at the recording of assessments, which she and I have talked about. Irrespective of whether someone’s health condition is mental or physical, does my hon. Friend agree that what matters is that they get the help that they need to meet the extra costs of living and to live the fullest possible lives?

Sarah Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is absolutely right to focus on parity of esteem—the Government have legislated for that—between people with mental and physical health conditions. That is really important.
Let us just look at the facts about how many people with mental health conditions are being positively supported by PIP. The latest figures from 27 October show that 66% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced daily living component compared with only 22% who receive DLA, the predecessor benefit. Some 31% of PIP recipients with mental health conditions get the enhanced mobility rate compared with just 10% of DLA recipients. It is absolutely the case that hundreds of thousands more people are being helped with PIP than with DLA. It is of course important, however, to do all we can continually to improve the process.

Kevan Jones: The mental health charity Mind found in its survey last year that 22% of the people it surveyed did not actually appeal against a PIP refusal because of their condition—they did not feel able to do so. I assume from what the Minister is saying that those people will be part of the reassessment, but what advice should Members of Parliament give those individuals now, because some will want to put in new applications? What support will they be given, because some of them have been left in a very difficult position, through no fault of their own, due to their mental illness?

Sarah Newton: We will be working with Mind—I agree that it is an excellent charity—and other organisations, and they will help us to shape this process so that it is conducted in a sympathetic and appropriate way to make sure that we reach all people who are entitled  to PIP.

Alex Burghart: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the way in which the Department is going about this reassessment. Will she assure the House that, as the Department undertakes this major operation, it will still be able to deliver assessments for people moving on to PIP for the first time and that this will not affect their claims in any way?

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend asks a really good question because, as I have demonstrated with the numbers I have shared with the House, more people are benefiting from PIP than from DLA, its predecessor benefit. I do not want people to miss out on the opportunity that PIP affords them. We are absolutely determined to make sure that there will be no reduction in the quality of service that we provide for new applicants or, indeed, people transferring from DLA to PIP.

Chris Stephens: Given that the Court’s ruling has taken effect, what interim guidance has the Department provided to assessors pending revisions to the assessment guide?

Sarah Newton: We are working through every aspect of undertaking this complex and challenging task. At the heart of everything we will be doing is working very closely with Mind and our other key stakeholders to get this right. The process must be done accurately and it must be done safely.

Simon Clarke: May I congratulate the Minister on the tone in which she has conducted these proceedings? It has been absolutely spot-on, and it really does refute some of the more accusatory comments from Opposition Members. Will she set out by how much spending on the main disability benefits has risen since 2010?

Sarah Newton: I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s question. We have a proud track record as Conservatives. In every year since 2010, the amount that we provide to people with health conditions and disabilities has risen, and it will continue to do so in every year of this Parliament. The figure is well in excess of £50 billion each year.

Sharon Hodgson: I receive many emails every week, as I am sure we all do, from constituents who are distraught about their PIP application being rejected. The whole process has been cruel beyond belief, and we now know it has all been for naught. Will the Minister reassure my constituents who have faced shocking suffering that they will be considered as part of this review, and what advice should I give them to ensure that that happens?

Sarah Newton: I simply rebut what the hon. Lady says about anybody in the DWP treating people cruelly. I assure her that we want to make sure that people claiming our benefits are treated with respect and dignity, and that the process is fair. Independent evaluations show that the majority of claimants rate their experience as good.
To answer the hon. Lady’s question about the advice that she could give her constituents, they will be contacted by DWP if we feel that they are entitled to more money. Nobody is going to be called in for a face-to-face assessment, and nobody is going to have money taken away from them.

Rachel Maclean: We have all met constituents in our surgeries who have concerns about PIP, so I really welcome today’s announcement, which will help people in my constituency. Will the Minister confirm what more her Department will continue to do, in the light of this announcement, to move forward the transformative benefits of getting disabled people back into work, which is one of the greatest levers for improving mental health for disabled people?

Sarah Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for her insight, because she is absolutely right that good work is good for people. A core part of our Work and Health programme is that we do everything we can to test and learn so that we enable more people to play their full part in society, including at work.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Portglenone medical centre in my constituency is one of the largest rural practices in Northern Ireland. It deals not only with  vulnerable people, but with some of the most marginalised in the country, because of their rurality. The practice has written to me to say not only that the system is deeply “flawed”, but that it is already
“seeing multiple patients having to appeal inappropriate decisions”.
I know that the Minister will not want to hear those words, which distress us all. Given that there is no Executive in Northern Ireland, will the Minister meet me and all party colleagues represented in the House to discuss how Northern Ireland can benefit from the decisions that she takes as a result of today’s announcement?

Sarah Newton: Of course I would delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I hold regular sessions in Parliament—teach-ins on PIP and ESA, which any Member of Parliament and their caseworkers may attend, bringing their casework along, so that we can have a really good dialogue. However, if the hon. Gentleman would like to have a specific meeting about the situation in Northern Ireland and what we can do to support him in doing his very important job of representing his constituents, I would be delighted to do so.

Nigel Mills: Would it be helpful to create a specific phone number that affected claimants or their advisers could contact to suggest that they think they ought to have a change of decision, rather than requiring them to wait while the Department searches through 1.6 million records to try and find them?

Sarah Newton: I thank my hon. Friend for his question but, no, I think that by far the best thing is to say that we will contact the people affected. I am concerned that if people started doing such a thing, it would be a distraction and could use up the resources that I want to put into ensuring that we get this sorted as soon as possible.

Marie Rimmer: When the Government announced the changes to the regulations in 2017, their own assessment was that approximately 164,000 claimants would be directly affected. Will the Minister commit to recommending that priority is given to those people who were directly affected and lost money, and to addressing the problems with some urgency?

Sarah Newton: I am having a conversation about prioritisation with Mind and stakeholders. It is really important that we work with experts and stakeholders to help us to decide the prioritisation. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady and everyone in the House that this is of the utmost importance and that we are acting at pace to get it sorted as soon as possible.

Michelle Donelan: Supporting the vulnerable and people with disabilities and health conditions should always be the Government’s top priority. Will the Minister confirm that personal independence payments are not subject to the benefits cap or means-testing, and that payments will continue to rise with inflation and to be untaxed?

Sarah Newton: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Keeping people safe and taking care of the most vulnerable people in society are the top priorities for this Government, and I know that my hon. Friend does  a huge amount of work in her constituency to support the most vulnerable members of her community. I can absolutely provide that assurance—PIP is a non means-tested benefit that is not subject to the benefits cap. It plays a vital role in enabling disabled people to play as full a part in society as they can, which is something I know that my hon. Friend and I both want.

Luciana Berger: It is nothing short of a national disgrace that Ministers persisted with this utterly flawed and unfair system of PIP assessments despite all the warnings. It was only when the High Court ruled that Ministers’ changes to PIP were “blatantly discriminatory” against people with mental health conditions and were a breach of their human rights—the opposite of parity of esteem in action—that the Government announced that they would review the 1.6 million cases. Can the Minister assure the House that PIP assessments will take into account the full range of symptoms and factors affecting mental health, especially those symptoms that we cannot see that present differently on different days, including due to bipolar disorder, depression and phobias?

Sarah Newton: I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that we are utterly committed to making sure that mental health and how it affects people are properly and fairly treated throughout the PIP assessment process, but I do think we should look at the number of people who are now receiving help, and the number of people with mental health problems who are now receiving financial support through PIP who were not under DLA. Some 200,000 people now receive the highest level of support, and more than 100,000 people receive the highest level of mobility support. Clearly PIP is not broken, because it is supporting many more people than DLA did.

Michael Tomlinson: My hon. Friend set out the potential costs of the review. Will she put that in the context of her Department’s overall spending to support people with disabilities and health conditions? Will she reaffirm that spending in this area increased in the last Parliament and will continue to go up during this Parliament?

Sarah Newton: Every single year, the funding that we put into supporting people with health conditions and disability has grown, and that sum will continue to grow. At the moment the budget is about £51 billion, and we estimate—it will only be an estimate until we have undertaken careful review, and it is probably a worst-case scenario—that this process will cost £3.7 billion. My hon. Friend is probably much better at calculating percentages than I am.

Drew Hendry: By no means an isolated case in my constituency, one of my constituents in Drumnadrochit, despite being clinically assessed with mental health issues, was marked as a fail for a mandatory assessment. That has exacerbated the conditions that she suffers from, and also the pain that she has to endure daily. How will the Minister ensure that my constituent gets the urgent help and review that she needs and deserves?

Sarah Newton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that constituency case and I would be delighted to meet him to review it.
I would sound a word of caution. I have met many people who would be described as having severe mental health problems, who play a really full part in their community and also work. We have put a lot of money into supporting innovative programmes that enable people with mental health problems to manage those conditions, so that they can stay in work. I have met people who have told me that the work we are doing has literally saved their lives. I have met consultants who have told me that they would never have believed that people with such severe mental health conditions could be so well supported to play their full part in society, including work. Each person is unique and each person’s needs must be assessed individually.

Clive Betts: As part of this review, will the Government be looking at people who currently have one component of PIP, to see whether they might be entitled to both components, and will they be looking at people on the lower rate of PIP, to see whether they might be entitled to the higher rate?

Sarah Newton: As I say, we will be ensuring that we fully implement the findings of the appeal, and we will be doing that by working very carefully with our stakeholders to make sure that we get this right. We will be reviewing all 1.6 million PIP claimants.

Stephen Lloyd: l thank the Labour party for securing an urgent question on this important issue. We know that the Government’s attempt to prevent those with mental health issues receiving the higher mobility rate was, frankly, nothing but a shoddy attempt to save money. That was a disgrace. They then dragged it out through the courts for many, many months and I think that was absolutely disgraceful behaviour. I know that the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is new in her post, but is she proud of what her Government did over this particular PIP episode?

Sarah Newton: It is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to recognise the contribution of Lord Freud, a fellow Liberal Democrat, who held the ministerial position that developed PIP when he was in the coalition Government; and it is disappointing that he is not celebrating the shared achievement of PIP and how it is enabling many more people to be supported. I do think it is really important that the hon. Gentleman listens carefully to what I have said—that we are going ahead with vigour to implement the full findings of this review.

Tracy Brabin: The Minister has been celebrating the Government’s desire to ensure that all PIP claimants live as full a life as possible. Can she confirm that cases, like those in my constituency, where people have had their vehicles taken from them will be reviewed as part of this process, and that mobility vehicles will be returned where appropriate?

Sarah Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and suggest that she comes to talk to me with those constituency cases so that we can fully understand. As people are migrating across benefits, such as when people are on ESA, we have a really well worked out programme with Motability so that people do not have to lose their cars. Of course, the devil is always in the  detail, and without the details of her constituency case I cannot properly respond. I invite her to come and discuss it with me.

Lisa Cameron: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a psychologist, and when I look at the PIP criteria it appears to me that they do not seem to lend themselves to a full assessment of mental health issues. It is also a concern that collateral medical information is not routinely sought from applicants. Will the Minister come to the all-party parliamentary group on disability, which I chair, to consider these issues pragmatically and to look at how people are trying to navigate the system, to ensure that the most vulnerable do not fall through the gaps?

Sarah Newton: I can assure the hon. Lady that PIP was co-designed with experts in the field. Where appropriate, medical information is of course used, but it is important to remember that the PIP assessment is a functional assessment; it is about the impact of someone’s mental or physical health on them as an individual, and no two people are the same. Of course, medical information is important, but the impact of listening to the individual, their carers and the people who support them is just as important. As for her kind invitation to the APPG, I would be delighted to come along and meet her.

Danielle Rowley: I welcome the fact that the Department will be working with Mind and that mental health has been mentioned so often today, but I have not heard enough about real, solid and tangible change that will support people with mental health conditions. Will the Minister commit to looking again at the assessment process to ensure that people with mental health conditions are assessed by a mental health clinician in the first instance?

Sarah Newton: The Government are deeply committed to supporting people with mental health issues. By 2020, we will be spending more than £1 billion a year, which includes a wide range of investment in services and in recruiting and training more people. I assure the hon. Lady that the people carrying out the PIP assessments, just like the people carrying out the work capability assessments, receive thorough training. We are always working with stakeholders to see what more we can do to improve the claimant and our customers’ experience.

Sylvia Hermon: I recognise that the Minister has great compassion in her role, and the manner in which she has spoken today confirms that, but I was very disappointed by her response when Motability vehicles were mentioned. The Minister must  take a much more robust direction in this regard. I have constituents who have definitely been refused PIP on account of their mental health condition and have therefore had a letter sent to them notifying them that the Motability car must be returned by a deadline. My constituents cannot comprehend what is going on. So, we would like a much more robust approach to Motability cars and a stay on their removal until PIP assessments have been properly completed.

Sarah Newton: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and her question. I would be delighted to meet her to consider that specific case to see what more I can do to work with Motability to ensure that people who need their cars get to keep them.

Paul Sweeney: A constituent of mine, a 63-year-old man, was deemed by his doctor to be unfit for work, having suffered from coronary artery disease, and was placed on the higher rate of PIP. He subsequently received a review form, which he duly completed within the timescales and resubmitted. He was then informed by the DWP that the form had not been received, and that as a result he would forfeit his benefits and be liable to pay back everything he had received up until that date. That clearly caused him unacceptable mental anguish, on top of his bad physical condition. It was only after the intervention of my caseworker that that review form was identified, found and his payments were reinstated. What will the Government do to deal with the clear anguish that that has caused my constituent as part of a wider symptomatic issue? Will they will reinstate a compensation scheme to ensure that these people are adequately compensated, particularly when they have fallen into severe debt?

Sarah Newton: The hon. Gentleman exemplifies the important role of a Member of Parliament in supporting constituents through their casework. He might like to meet me about that case. It is by reviewing individual cases that we find out how we can make improvements. I reassure all Members that if a decision is overturned and the Department has made a mistake, we back pay people to the date from which they are eligible for the benefit.

Gavin Newlands: We all want—at least I hope we all want—to make sure that all those in need get what they need to live, not just to exist. To that end, will the Minister confirm that the £3.7 billion that this is expected to cost will be an additional allocation from the Treasury and will not be found from existing DWP budgets?

Sarah Newton: The figure of £3.7 billion is an estimate of what this will cost. As we work through sorting out the problem, we will have a much better idea of the numbers, but I can absolutely assure him that we will not make savings in our Department to fund it.

Points of Order

Anna Turley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following two similar points of order made last week by my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I am sorry to have to make this point of order but I am beginning to fear that this pattern of failure is not an accident.
Last Friday, the following Members of Parliament came to my constituency: the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I was notified only of the visit of the Secretary of State, and that was after 8 pm the previous night. I received no notification from the other two hon. Members. What is more, I was not invited to a departmental, non-political event at Teesport in my constituency, whereas the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who has neither a port nor the River Tees in his constituency, was. I can only presume that it was because he is a Conservative MP. The same situation arose last year with a visit from the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for the northern powerhouse.
Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, as to whether this is an appropriate politicisation of a departmental visit and a breach of parliamentary protocol, and may I also seek your clarification on the fact that having a directly elected Mayor in a region does not mean that Ministers can circumvent Members of Parliament when visiting or engaging with constituents in an area? It is deeply disrespectful to the people I represent, who should have their voices heard at events in their backyard. It is also disrespectful to this place to seek to cut out parliamentarians to boost the profile of elected mayors of the same party as those other Members.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order and understand that she has notified the Members concerned of her intention to raise it. There is certainly a strong convention that Ministers should give advance notice to hon. Members if they plan to visit their constituency on official business. Indeed, this requirement is spelled out in the ministerial code. I understand that notice was given by the Secretary of State, as she said, but rather late in the day, and she does not think that that was reasonable. She also indicates that notice was not given that another Minister would be attending, which was perhaps an oversight on the part of the Department.
I can confirm that the convention to give notice applies equally to Back-Bench Members. All Members should give advance notice to other hon. Members if they plan to visit their constituency on official business. It is, quite frankly, in everybody’s interest that this convention is upheld.
The hon. Lady asks me whether the fact that a Government Back Bencher was apparently invited to the event when she was not represents an inappropriate  politicisation of a departmental visit and a breach of Parliamentary protocol. It is not a matter of parliamentary protocol, but a matter for Government. However it strikes me as unsatisfactory, and rather curious, not to invite all local Members to an event that is intended to be a non-political, as the hon. Lady indicates this one was.
The hon. Lady also asked me to clarify that the existence of a directly elected Mayor does not mean that Ministers can circumvent local Members of Parliament when visiting constituencies. I can certainly confirm that the existence of an elected Mayor has no bearing on the matter and the usual exemptions apply. I am sure that the point of order has been heard on the Treasury Bench, and I hope that it will be conveyed to the Secretary of State and the Minister.

Chris Matheson: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) would raise that point of order, so I had not mentioned to the right hon. Member, to whom I will not refer by name, that I would respond to it. However, I found out last night that a Member of the Cabinet visited my constituency this week and certainly did not inform me or my office of that visit.
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, which I might ask you to address again, Madam Deputy Speaker. What she described is apparently becoming something of a habit—a commonplace occurrence. Will you advise whether there are mechanisms, through the Chair or other procedures of the House, whereby we might monitor where these affronteries are taking place, so that we can quantify them and see whether a pattern is indeed emerging that needs to be quashed?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said about the fact that it is in everybody’s interest that the existing conventions are upheld, and I reiterate that. On being notified of other possible breaches of the convention, it is up to individual Departments to make sure that they follow the conventions. If individual Members wish to draw to the attention of either the Speaker or Government Ministers that they are not sticking to the convention, it is absolutely up to Members to do that.

Simon Clarke: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm whether the same convention applies to members of the shadow Front-Bench team? I have had experiences that relate to this in exactly the same way, when I have not received due notification.

Rosie Winterton: The convention applies to all Members. It is important that shadow Ministers inform Members when visiting their constituents, so the answer is yes.

Bob Seely: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think I saw the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) down on my island during Cowes Week last year, sitting in a VIP tent, so I presume that he was there in part because of his role as a Member of Parliament. He is a  member of the Labour party, so it would be good if all sides respected the rules. Because we are terribly laid-back and chilled on the island, I did not mention it, but I suppose that I could have made a drama out of it if  I had wished.

Rosie Winterton: We have to be sensible about this. Obviously, people will pay private visits to other people’s constituencies. That is quite different from official visits or visits by Ministers.

KEW GARDENS (LEASES)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Zac Goldsmith: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the management of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, include the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years.
Kew Gardens is a priceless asset, not only to those of us who are lucky to live in west London or even to the UK, but to the whole world. I feel immensely fortunate that my constituency covers Kew, but my interest in, and support for, the gardens goes well beyond my role as the local MP.
Many Members will know the beauty of Kew. It is a UNESCO world heritage site that attracts nearly 2 million visitors every year, including 100,000 schoolchildren, and is an oasis of calm and beauty in our frantic and busy city. I am also honoured to represent the great Sir David Attenborough as one of my constituents—I might even say, my children excluded, that he is my favourite constituent—and he described Kew as
“the premier botanical gardens in the world”.
Tourists flock from all over the world to see it.
Kew has the world’s largest collection of living plants, but it also has one of the world’s largest botanical library collections. Last November, I was taken round Kew’s herbarium, where more than 7 million plant specimens are kept, including 350,000 type specimens—the original specimens on which new species descriptions are based. The plan is to digitise that entire collection and make it available to anyone in the world who wishes to access it.
Kew’s real value derives from much more than being an attraction, or even a stunning garden: it has been a pioneer in plant science and research for well over 250 years. Kew is at the cutting edge of research to identify, for example, ways in which plants can help combat cancer, diabetes, antimicrobial resistance and much more besides. It is worth pointing out that a quarter of all prescription drugs come directly from plants.
Kew is also leading the way on climate change adaptation of crops. Fifty per cent. of the calories consumed by our species come from just three big grasses—wheat, maize and rice—so the in-built vulnerability of the global food system is self-evident. The work being done at Kew to breed resilience into essential commodities is critically important. Kew truly is a national treasure.
Hon. Members may wonder why the management and finances of Kew Gardens are a matter for this House. Kew is Crown land and as such, is governed by the Crown Lands Act 1702. It is managed by the Secretary of State and a board of trustees, and it is partially funded by the Government through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Four years ago, I led a debate in Westminster Hall along with the now shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), when it became clear that the Government’s proposed cuts to Kew’s funding were threatening its core scientific work. I was absolutely delighted that we won our argument. The right hon. Gentleman is not here now, but I pay tribute to and thank him for his help in delivering that change.
Since then, Kew has gone from strength to strength. The Bill that I am proposing would help to build on that success and ensure Kew’s future for many more years to come. This straightforward and simple Bill would have a very big impact on Kew Gardens. It is backed by Kew Gardens and its trustees, and the Bill’s previous incarnation—it was brought to the House during the last Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger)—was also backed by Members from across the House. It is also supported by the three councillors who represent Kew ward.
Simply, this is what the Bill would do. The 1702 Act prevents the sale of Crown land and limits the length  of leases granted from Crown land to a maximum of 31 years. The Bill would simply allow the Secretary of State to grant leases of up to 150 years, in line with Crown Estate land. In practice, 31-year restrictions on leases are stifling, and Kew Gardens has struggled to find commercial interest. A 31-year limit is clearly not attractive to those who would seek to lease the buildings, but a 150-year lease clearly would be.
I stress that the Bill—this change—-would not involve selling assets, nor would it be about renting out Kew Gardens. The sale of Crown land is forbidden already by law, and any leasing of land would be on non-core land and property, and not on the gardens. The Secretary of State, who has the power to grant a lease, can do so only with the consent of Kew’s trustees, who are duty-bound not to approve anything that would affect the gardens’ core purpose. The Bill would do absolutely nothing to undermine that. Kew’s UNESCO world heritage status adds further protection.
It is difficult to give a precise figure for the financial benefits that accrue from 150-year leases, but Kew Gardens estimates that the revenue generated could amount to around £40 million, with the majority coming in the first decade. There would also be the added benefit of lower maintenance costs by transferring the liability for land and property that had been leased. That extra income would be significant and transformative for Kew Gardens. As Members will know from visiting it, much of the Kew estate is in need of improvement and conservation.
The phenomenal scientific research I have described can be continued only if there is sufficient funding. This simple Bill would help Kew become more financially self-sufficient. It is backed by Kew Gardens, Kew’s councillors and numerous London MPs—many more than I could pack into the Bill. I am sorry I could not include the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) in the list I will be reeling off shortly, but she has expressed her support as well, along with other MPs. The Bill is entirely uncontroversial, and I hope it will receive the House’s support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Zac Goldsmith, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Richard Benyon, Ruth Cadbury, Theresa Villiers, Dr Matthew Offord, Robert Neill, Bob Blackman, Paul Scully, Mr Iain Duncan Smith, Chris Philp and Andy Slaughter present the Bill.
Zac Goldsmith accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 February, and to be printed (Bill 158).

HIGH SPEED RAIL  (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL

[Relevant document: Tenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, High Speed 2 Annual Report and Accounts, HC 454.]
Second Reading

Rosie Winterton: I inform the House that the amendment has been selected.

Chris Grayling: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
It is four years since my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), stood at this Dispatch Box to seek powers for a new railway line between London and the north, the first new major railway line north of London for 120 years. At that time, it was simply a concept—an important one but one that seemed a long way off. We have come a long way since. In February 2017, Parliament granted powers to construct phase 1 of the scheme, from London to the west midlands, and works on part of this route have now begun. This project is now a developing reality. We came a step closer to an operating railway when we announced the shortlist of companies that will bid for the west coast partnership and design, launch and operate the early passenger services on HS2.
This vital new rail capacity project, under construction from London to Birmingham, is only the first part of the project. We need to deliver capacity to our northern cities and bring our country closer together. I am pleased to stand here today, therefore, to start the next phase of this vital project. Phase 2a extends HS2 from the west midlands to Crewe. The first stage of the new line, which will take the midlands engine through to the northern powerhouse, connecting the two together, will accelerate construction of the first section of phase 2 by six years and bring us a step closer to delivering a complete brand-new high-speed line all the way to Manchester. That is the importance of today’s debate. It is this link that will take the railway line towards Manchester—finally to one of our great cities and industrial centres of the north-west.

Jonathan Edwards: As the Secretary of State will be aware, the statement of funding policy that accompanied the last comprehensive spending review awarded to Wales a 0% Barnett consequential rating for HS2, whereas Scotland and Northern Ireland both had 100%. Unless he can assure the House that Wales will get a 100% rating in the next CSR, my colleagues and I will have no option but to vote against the Bill this evening.

Chris Grayling: If the House does not support the Bill, the Crewe hub and the links to north Wales that it will provide will be simply an illusion, so the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be doing down Wales, which would be surprising—though, of course, it is typically Conservative Members who are the real champions of Wales. We will continue to ensure we provide the right connections to Wales.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way so early in his speech, and I ask him to forgive me as I cannot be here for its entirety because I have other duties outside the Chamber, but I hope to return. He says he is very proud of this new railway the Government are building, but can he explain why he is building a railway with old technology? Back in 2015, the Japanese beat all their records with a Maglev train, whereas we appear to be building something from the last century, not something for the future.

Chris Grayling: It is interesting. I have travelled on the Maglev line in development in Japan. It is a project that has a role to play in the Japanese transport system, but, having studied it at first hand, I do not believe it is the right project for this country, and nor do I believe it could deliver the level of capacity that HS2 will. HS2, of course, is a capacity project that brings with it speed, not the other way around, and that is what our transport system needs more than anything else. It is crucial, too, to the development of the north of England, which has a population of more than 15 million and over 1 million businesses, and which has exports worth upwards of £50 billion. The north of England makes a huge contribution to the success and prosperity of this country, but it needs strong and effective new transport links, and this project will be an important part of that, which is why it is so important to the whole UK.

Cheryl Gillan: The Secretary of State says this is now about capacity, but please can he not change history? When this was first proposed, including the route through my constituency, it was all about speed; otherwise it would not have been allowed to travel on a route that will cause so much environmental damage.

Chris Grayling: My right hon. Friend will know that I have been consistent all the way through in talking about this as a capacity project. I know that she and  I are on different sides of the argument, but, ever since I was shadow Transport Secretary a decade ago, I have always talked about this improvement in terms of capacity, and I will continue to do so, because that is the most important part of it. We can debate the rights and wrongs, but I believe it is a capacity project—the speed is a bonus. I do not believe in building something with old technology—we should have a state-of-the-art railway—but the big difference this will make will be to capacity.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the Bill, but I note that the Minister referred to connecting the west midlands to HS2. What about the northern powerhouse and Liverpool’s connection to the new high-speed line?

Chris Grayling: I did mention the northern powerhouse. In terms of Liverpool, which, as the hon. Lady knows, is a city I have great affection for, as we move beyond the Bill and develop northern powerhouse rail and integrate what needs to be done in the north with the north-south routes and HS2, I believe that all the great cities of the north—Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle, York, Hull—will benefit, as indeed will places further north, such as Carlisle and Scotland. I will come back to Scotland in a moment.

Kevin Barron: If that is the case and Ministers are concerned for the north, why has electrification between cities in the north been cancelled?

Chris Grayling: As I have said many times in the House, we are delivering a process of modernisation on the midland main line that will transform journey times and deliver much improved rolling stock and brand-new trains much sooner. Our proposed model will deliver the improvements people want in the early 2020s, which is sooner than any other project would have done.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous so early in his speech. I agree with him: it is about capacity. We cannot have an effective, modern society unless we have capacity, and we have to have good infrastructure, which means connectivity. Would he therefore consider advancing the Government’s excellent plans for HS2 by bringing on the other piece of the Y to Leeds? I believe that people throughout the whole of the east midlands support HS2, and we want it as soon as possible, please, especially at Toton in Broxtowe.

Chris Grayling: I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Toton is going to be a fantastic centre in the east midlands for commercial development—transport and residential—whose benefits will ripple out across the area and have a hugely positive effect on the whole of the east midlands. I understand her point. We are working as fast as we can to bring before the House the powers we need for the east midlands and Yorkshire leg. I want to get it right—there are sensitivities on the route, as she will know—and I have travelled much of the route myself and looked at the issues as and when they arrive. We will do everything we can to minimise the impact on residents—I understand that such major projects have a negative effect on some people—but I assure her that we will bring the measure for the rest of the route before the House as soon as we can.
I have talked a bit about the north. Let me now talk about Scotland, because I want it to benefit from HS2 on the day it opens. When the full Y network opens in 2033, HS2 trains will run seamlessly on to the west and east coast main lines from the network that is then built. My Department and Transport Scotland are working closely with Network Rail in looking at options that will go beyond HS2. We want to identify options for strong business cases that can improve journey times, capacity, resilience and reliability. Our ultimate ambition is for three-hour rail journeys between London and Scotland’s central belt—a further strengthening of the Union that we all hold so dear. That, I think, is the point: HS2 will be a transformative project for the entire United Kingdom, including the parts that it does not serve directly. The benefits in terms of job creation, business opportunity and technological development will be enormous for the whole country.

Andrew Jones: I strongly support the Bill, and agree with my right hon. Friend’s comments about capacity in our rail network and the positive impact that HS2 will have on our northern economy. Can he tell us a little more about the impact on job creation in the north and elsewhere outside London?

Chris Grayling: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that he has done on this project. He has been a very distinguished Transport Minister. He has not only made a major contribution to its development, but has been immensely sensitive in dealing with residents. He should take great credit for that.
The point about jobs is crucial. Our industrial strategy sets out a vision of a Britain that is confident and competitive, a global trading nation that is in charge of its own destiny, and HS2 can play a big part in that. Last year we announced which train builders were vying for the £2.75 billion to deliver Britain’s state-of-the-art high-speed trains. That investment alone will create many opportunities in this country.
I have said previously that during the procurement process, as we pick the organisations that will build these trains, it must be clear that they will have to leave a substantial skills and technology footprint in this country. We will not countenance trains being built in another part of the world, put on a ship and delivered to the UK, with no benefit at all to the UK itself. This project will have a lasting impact. Indeed, the whole construction of this railway will create jobs, careers, technologies and expertise that will last a new generation of engineers for a lifetime. That is another reason why it is so crucial.

Michelle Donelan: Siemens in my constituency has been shortlisted to provide the signalling for HS2, and Chippenham hopes to benefit from the fact that 70% of the new jobs will be outside London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this project has the potential to benefit the south-west as well?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right, and I am delighted that Siemens has been shortlisted for that work. I want as much of the work as possible to be done in the United Kingdom, so that we can develop that skills footprint, developing those young apprentices and developing the engineering skills that we need for the future. That must happen throughout the United Kingdom: south-west, north-east, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, south-east, midlands, the north and East Anglia. I want to see jobs and opportunities for British businesses, and businesses based in Britain.

Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have Crossrail as a model? It is being finalised this year, and will be operating next year. That project was built on the use of suppliers in the United Kingdom, and the spread of its supply network throughout the UK. Although it was a London project, many parts of the country have benefited from it. What HS2 is doing is the natural follow-through from what Crossrail did.

Chris Grayling: Absolutely. Crossrail may be a project for transport in London, but it is also a project for engineering and industry in the United Kingdom as a whole. It brings benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom, and HS2 will bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Powerhouse Rail, when it is built, will bring benefits in southern as well as northern England, and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom. The more that we invest in these projects, the more economic benefits we will deliver across the UK.

Michael Fabricant: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to take his eye off a distant ball, which is the future of the west coast main line after HS2 is constructed? More than 44 stations on that line will not be served by HS2. It is very important for passenger traffic to be maintained on the west coast main line, and to ensure that it is not used just for freight traffic.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is right. As one who has sailed through his local station many times, on Pendolino trains, I believe that we can and should do better at such intermediate stations. We should provide better commuter links to Birmingham and to towns such as Northampton and Milton Keynes, and we should provide better links within the Trent valley—from Nuneaton to Lichfield, and up to Stafford. We will be able to do all those things to a greater degree in the future. Yes, there will be a freight benefit. We all want a freight benefit, because we want fewer trucks on the M6 and the M1, but the fact is that we can do both. Creating that extra capacity on HS2, or via HS2, is, to my mind, its great benefit. It will of course be a fast, state-of-the-art railway, but first and foremost it is about giving our transport system the capacity that it will need to enable us to grow in the future.
I know that there are people for whom this project is bad news. There are people who are affected by the routes, many of whom are in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I genuinely wish it were possible—I am sure that Members in all parts of the House wish it were possible—to deliver infrastructure improvements like this without human consequences, but it is not possible. What we must do is try to treat those people decently.
HS2 has not always got it right, and we will not always get it right, but I give the House today an assurance that I have given it before: when an injustice is being done, we will do everything we can as a ministerial team to sort it out. Members need only come to us and say, “This is unfair”, and we will look at it. Indeed, I have already done so in places up and down the route, and I will continue to do so, particularly in respect of this part of the project. A number of constituencies on the route from the Trent valley up to Crewe are affected. As the two Ministers responsible, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), and I will happily talk to colleagues during this process. There will, of course, be many opportunities for them to make representations about the impacts to the Committee, assuming that the Bill is given a Second Reading today.

Maggie Throup: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend is saying today. We have also had many conversations about the ways in which some of my constituents are affected. That has been going on since 2013. We may get there in the end with compensation and agreements, but the problem is that it takes so long—far too long for some people. Some of my constituents are very elderly, and some are quite ill. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, and my constituents, that we can improve the process?

Chris Grayling: I absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. There are processes that we must rightly follow to protect public money, but there are exceptions that always step outside what is planned. Part of the job  that we have, as Ministers, is to ensure that when those exceptions arise—and I know that there are two in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which she and I have been talking about—we must resolve them before we reach a point at which those people are suffering in their lives. We are a little bit of time away from the phase 2 Bill and the process involved in phase 2b. As I have said to my hon. Friend and to other Members, we will try to sort out those exceptions so that people do not suffer inappropriately. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend to try to resolve the situation.

Gareth Snell: While the Secretary of State is handing out assurances, may I, on behalf of the people of Stoke-on-Trent, ask for an assurance that the existing direct and frequent services from Stoke-on-Trent to London, Birmingham and Manchester on the west coast main line will in no way be diminished or reduced as a result of HS2 taking up some of the capacity through the classic compatible services?

Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman will know—and I have given this assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton)— I am acutely aware of the issues in Stoke-on-Trent. I want to ensure not only that the high-quality service that it deserves is protected, but that HS2 trains run through it, which is also what it deserves. I have given that clear commitment to the people of Stoke. I want them to have a first-rate rail service, and HS2 will make it possible for them to have an even better rail service than they have at present.
Let me say more about the affected communities. Last week we announced an additional £5 million for communities and businesses that are disrupted by the construction of phase 2a, which can be spent on public projects, community centres and so forth. That will add to what we have already committed in terms of the mitigation and compensation in place, and we will carry on looking at ways in which we can minimise the impact on local people and the areas affected.

Rebecca Pow: I am totally in favour of the project, as train travel is environmentally friendly because it gets people out of their cars and on to trains. But will the Secretary of State reflect on the potential loss of ancient woodland because of HS2, and whether consideration might be given, where possible, to using tunnels so that we keep these wonderful, magnificent trees? We have only 2% of them left in the whole country. Will we consider doing this? If not, and if there is unavoidable loss, could we consider 30% amelioration, as recommended by Natural England, rather than the figures bandied about today?

Chris Grayling: I am very well aware of the potential impact on ancient woodland. We have already made changes to the design of the project to try to mitigate that impact, and there is an absolute commitment to look to plant afresh and to develop environmental measures to compensate for any loss of woodland. Also, there are some exciting potential projects on the route that can enhance the natural environment at the same time as we are having to make changes elsewhere.  I assure my hon. Friend that we are very sensitive to the issue she mentions, and we will do our best to make this project in as environmentally friendly a way as possible. We cannot build something new like this across the whole country without having some impacts, but we can try to mitigate them and put money into positive alternatives. That is what we are committed to, and that is what we will do.
This is a step on the way towards creating a 21st century new rail network: phase 1 to Birmingham, phase 2a to Crewe, eventually phase 2b to Manchester and Leeds, and then across the top with Northern Powerhouse Rail, and then, through that, the connections to the north-east, which the shadow Secretary of State will hold dear, to Scotland—colleagues on both sides of the House representing Scottish constituencies are keen to see that connection put in place—and into north Wales through the Crewe hub that we are working on at the moment.
This project will provide the capacity our transport system needs in the 21st century. It will deliver better journey times and, particularly importantly, much better connections between our northern cities—Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds—where there are poor connections at the moment; this will make a huge difference to them. But above all this is about making sure this country has a 21st century transport system. I hope the project commands support across the House. I know that some Members have issues both about the principles of the project and constituency impacts. To those with constituency impacts I simply say again that we will do our best to minimise those and to work as closely as possible with them to make sure that people who are affected are treated as decently as possible.
This Bill is enormously important to this House, to the future of this country, to our nation, to strengthening our Union, and to delivering economic growth across the whole country, and I very much hope that this House will give it its support today.

Andy McDonald: I am pleased to stand here today to support a project which was instigated by the last Labour Government. National infrastructure investment is too important to be left to the vagaries of the election cycle. It is to the Government’s credit that they have continued to back both HS2 and Crossrail since 2010. Labour has always maintained that HS2 must be built as a network rather than a standalone piece of infrastructure. It is this approach which will deliver the maximum economic benefits. Both main parties can agree that HS2 is about more than transport. High-speed rail is about unlocking the economic potential of the north and the midlands. It will drive a rebalancing of the UK economy by improving connectivity between the north and south.

Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman talked about HS2 being an integrated network, but one of my criticisms of HS2 is that it is far from integrated. The original plan was for it to go direct down through the channel tunnel and into continental Europe and I can give other examples—I will probably will do so in my speech—but this is far from integrated: it is stand-alone, meets at Crewe and does not actually go into Birmingham New Street. Why is this?

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and it is key that HS2 integrates. We have just heard words from the Secretary of State about the need to ensure that it does connect with our northern cities, but we are yet to see those plans unfurl. We have heard about Transport for the North’s aspirations, but this cannot be a stand-alone project; it is essential that it links into our great towns and cities throughout the nation.
Linking the great cities of the north and midlands is equally important and will bring much-needed economic benefits to those regions. Labour supports the nearly 30,000 jobs the construction of HS2 will deliver and the huge uplift it will give to apprenticeships and training, particularly outside London. It is not too early to consider how we will retain and develop those skills in the future in other infrastructure projects both at home and abroad. I would be interested in any comments the Secretary of State has on this point, particularly with regard to Northern Powerhouse Rail and Crossrail.
I also make a plea that we must not repeat the catastrophe of the Carillion experience with apprentices. Apprentices in my constituency are being left flapping in the wind, not knowing whether they are going to be paid. We hear today that their employment will come to an end at the end of this month. It is a disgrace that £6.5 million of public money has gone into an apprenticeship programme that leaves our apprentices short of their qualifications and without employment. The Government should intervene now to guarantee that those apprentices will receive that assurance from this Government today.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for giving way, and he and I share that view. I can assure him that, on the HS2 project, the apprentices who were employed by Carillion are migrating to work for Kier and those employed by Carillion have been moved on to the project with the other two partners. So not only should there be no hiatus in the work taking place, but, more importantly, the people on those projects are moving to different companies involved in them. There are obviously some very difficult circumstances elsewhere as a consequence of the collapse of Carillion, but I have been very keen with this project to make sure we have the seamless transition we contracted for last summer, and I am delighted to see the apprentices move on in a way that enables them to carry on with their apprenticeships.

Andy McDonald: I am grateful for that reassurance in the context of these projects, but I am particularly concerned about these apprentices in the here-and-now; there are 100 out of the 1,400 who have been prejudiced in my community and we want to see this Government respond by coming to the table and making sure those young people have a future. It is difficult enough to encourage people into these industries in the first instance without leaving them high and dry, as has happened on this occasion.
I welcome the commitments contained in HS2’s environmental principles. It is imperative that environmental standards and air quality are at the forefront of the project. Many of the arguments about why we need HS2, and why we do not, have been well rehearsed in this House over many years: passenger rail numbers  have doubled since 1995; rail freight has grown by two thirds over the same period; and the existing network has been operating at full capacity for years. No amount of timetable-tinkering can change this; I trust that all Members are in agreement about that.
Although it is important to maintain our vital road network, there is an urgent need to secure modal shift across transport: we cannot build our way out of congestion on our roads, and we must be watchful about the sustainability of domestic air travel. In addition, we face the prospect of the population of Britain reaching 70 million by the end of the decade. So the question is: how are we going to move our people around our nation? It is no exaggeration to say that the very economic and social livelihood of this country is at stake. Our capacity to move people by rail and bus is therefore crucial.

Robert Goodwill: Given those circumstances and the pressure on the system, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the last thing this country needs is the nationalisation of our rail system?

Andy McDonald: I am grateful to the former Minister for his intervention. If he will be patient for just a few more minutes, I will happily address that point in full detail.
I was proud that Labour forced the Government to introduce much tougher reporting on HS2 spending through an amendment to the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 before the previous Bill came to the House in 2014. I pay tribute to my predecessors, my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in that respect. We also amended that Bill to improve integration with existing transport networks and the specific reporting of the jobs and skills created by the project.

Jim Cunningham: I do not want to digress too much, but this is all relevant. We only need an incident on the west coast main line for everything to stop, and that certainly needs to be looked at. Also, I have constituents who will not qualify for compensation as a result of this project.

Andy McDonald: One of the main points about this project is that it will allow us to build resilience into the network. That is not an either/or; this is not simply about building HS2. My hon. Friend is right say that we need to build greater resilience into our network. On the point about compensation arrangements, it has been noted on both sides of the House that we need to ensure that proper compensation is paid. These are really sensitive issues, and people should not be left wondering whether compensation arrangements will come forward. My hon. Friend is right about that as well.
I am keen to hear the Minister’s views on striking the right balance between HS2 services and freight on the parts of the network where high-speed trains will run on conventional tracks. HS2, the Department for Transport and Network Rail need to resolve the important concerns that are being expressed by freight operators. Elsewhere, there are significant questions to be answered about how the new high-speed railway will integrate with the  existing rail network. During the Second Reading debate in 2014, the previous Secretary of State for Transport boasted that
“upgrading Britain’s rail infrastructure is a key part of this Government’s long-term economic plan”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 567.]
He also said:
“we will be electrifying more than 800 miles of line throughout the country”.—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 561.]
It is quite clear that the Government have broken those promises over the past four years. They made commitments on rail ahead of the 2015 general election, only to break them days later. The reality is that the last two Transport Secretaries have cut upgrades to rail infrastructure and cancelled the electrification of rail lines. Of course, HS2 is but one piece of the jigsaw. I am therefore concerned that if the other pieces are not right, the whole thing will not fit together properly.
The current Secretary of State for Transport came to the House in November to announce his strategic vision for rail. The problem was that his plan was neither strategic nor visionary. It was a smokescreen to cover up a blatant multibillion pound bail-out of the east coast main line franchise. It is clear to passengers and taxpayers that this Government are defending a broken franchising system. Under this Government, protecting private companies comes before the public interest. Giving Carillion a contract for HS2 last July while that company was imploding was an appalling decision, and the Minister’s legal justifications for that decision were risible. His bail-out of Stagecoach-Virgin on the east coast was yet another serious misjudgement in which his dogma won out over pragmatism and common sense.

Bob Seely: I think the hon. Gentleman has wandered into the wrong debate. We are talking about HS2, not about Carillion. Can we stick to the subject, please?

Rosie Winterton: Order. That is a matter for me, actually.

Andy McDonald: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will find out what HS2 has to do with the east coast and west coast main lines if he can be patient just a little longer.
The Secretary of State’s promised east coast partnership between track and train by 2020 is unworkable and undeliverable. No one in the rail industry believes that it is actually going to happen. Another of his pet projects is the west coast project—perhaps the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) will want to pay attention to this—which is going to be awarded later this year. The winner of that contract will run services on the west coast main line and oversee the introduction of HS2 services. The Government have a track record of accepting bids from the private sector that are either too high or too low, and the Department for Transport has proved unable to manage such projects. Given that the Secretary of State has been found wanting so often, what makes him think that his west coast partnership will work any better than his east coast partnership?
High Speed 2 will be the jewel in the crown of Britain’s rail network when it begins operations in the next decade. It will be a shining example of Britain’s capability and talent, and it will encapsulate our technological and engineering prowess. However, I can tell the Secretary of State that there will be uproar across the land, should this piece of the family silver be handed over to Virgin Trains, Stagecoach or others of their ilk. I can tell the House today that there will be no gift of HS2 to Richard Branson or Brian Souter under the next Labour Government. HS2 will be built with public money and it will stay in public ownership.

Patrick McLoughlin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing forward this Bill. I also congratulate all those people in the Department for Transport and in HS2 who are working to finalise these proposals. It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), although I think he slightly spoiled his speech by going off piste and talking about electrification. We will take no lessons from Labour on electrification, given its record between 1997 and 2010, during which time it electrified 10 miles of railway. I would like to say that that was a snail’s pace, but I think that a snail would have travelled further in 13 years than Labour did with its electrification.

Andy McDonald: The former Secretary of State seems to have totally forgotten the 67 miles of HS1 that were electrified then. Those 67 plus 10 miles add up to a lot more than this Government have ever electrified.

Patrick McLoughlin: I think that HS1 was operating before Labour came into government.

Chris Matheson: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will make some progress.
It is right to say that we have seen a renaissance on our railways since privatisation, and that renaissance continued under the last Labour Government. Indeed, in their 13 years in government, they did not seek to change the franchising at all. They felt that that was the best way to operate the railways. We had the private sector and the public sector involved, and we saw our railways improve tremendously. If we get to a situation—I hope we do not—of the railways going back to a fully nationalised body, what happened in the ’60s and ’70s will happen again. Rail was always at the back of the queue for investment. Hospitals and education took priority; the railways were left without any priority whatsoever. There is no doubt in my mind that privatisation has led to the rejuvenation of the rail industry, and so much so that passenger numbers have increased from something like 700 million to some 1.6 billion, which speaks for itself.
I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced. David Higgins recommended that we should try to bring the investment and benefits of HS2 more quickly to the north. Should this Bill get its Second Reading today, it is worth remembering that we will see high-speed services to Crewe by 2027. In infrastructure terms, and given the  necessary planning, that is not that far away, so I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on bringing the Bill forward.
I know that the Government are well aware of this, but I want to talk about the importance of continuing to develop skills in engineering. The National College for High Speed Rail, which is based in Doncaster and Birmingham, will enable people to get the engineering skills that are so important. All that follows on from the remarkable Crossrail project, which will start to open to the public later this year. We saw such skills in the television programmes covering its development across London.
This important Bill is about capacity. There are those who say that the Department for Transport and its Secretaries of State have changed their mind and that they talk about capacity more than speed, but the very first HS2 document that was published referred to capacity, too. The west coast main line is one of the busiest lines in Europe, if not the busiest. We need a massive injection of infrastructure, and this Bill is the answer

Jim Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that we want to speed things up and that the west coast main line is very busy, but to go back to the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), what are we going to do about the bottlenecks? There were cancellations yesterday, and there only has to be one incident for everything to stop. That affects freight as much as anything else.

Patrick McLoughlin: I completely accept that, but the simple fact is that that is one of the reasons for the new line. We want resilience, alternatives and something that is much more modern. We have spent a fortune on upgrading the west coast main line from Birmingham up to Manchester, although I understand that we did not carry out any upgrade south of Rugby. The upgrade was essential, and if the then Government had been a bit more forward thinking, they could have built a new high-speed line then rather than doing an upgrade.
An upgrade has been undertaken, however, and it is very visible near Lichfield, for example, where the bridge has been changed as the line goes through Armitage to accommodate four tracks instead of two. There has been a huge amount of investment in the west coast main line, and that answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) with regard to the need for greater capacity, more alternatives, and the modern engineering that we will get from HS2. I cannot remember the exact year, but there was a time a few years ago when every single railway line in the country had problems because of weather disruption apart from HS1, which was built to a high specification with modern engineering.

Anna Soubry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for his excellent speech. Does he agree that capacity and speed are not mutually exclusive? Not only will we get a world-class new line to deliver new capacity, but we are improving our existing lines. With that in mind, will he confirm how much is about to be invested in the new signalling programme in Derby, a place he knows very well?

Patrick McLoughlin: More than £200 million is being spent in Derby on re-signalling and a new platform to ensure that London trains no longer have to cross the lines going to other parts of the country, thereby enabling those trains to go straight through on the main line. That is the kind of investment that is already happening in our railways up and down the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been successful in securing extra investment not just for HS2, but for all the other railway lines that so badly need the kind of upgrades that we will see in Derby. We will no doubt complain when the station has to be closed for a period over the summer, but such a thing is inevitable if we are to achieve such overall benefit. We saw something similar just a few years ago at Nottingham station.

Bob Seely: My right hon. Friend speaks eloquently about busyness, capacity and bottlenecks on the west coast main line. Does he have anything to say about the south and south-west rail routes into London? Those routes are busier and have more capacity problems than many northern routes, but they will be unaffected by HS2 and might have their funding skewed because of it.

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not think that that is the case, but there is nobody better than the Secretary of State to answer those points. The tremendous investment at Reading station has improved the whole network to the south-west. The investment at that station alone was in the region of £800 million or £900 million. Extra flyovers were put in to improve capacity down to the south-west.

Rachel Maclean: The improvement in overall capacity is brilliant for the people we represent in towns such as Redditch that are outside the  major conurbations. The improved capacity will create  an opportunity for more services from Redditch to Birmingham for commuting and jobs.

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right that HS2 will free up a lot of capacity that is currently used not for local services, but for services from London to Birmingham and on to Manchester. That is one of the answers provided by HS2.

Gareth Snell: rose—

Patrick McLoughlin: I give way for the last time.

Gareth Snell: I thank the former Secretary of State for giving way. What does he think will be the extra capacity for commuter services around Staffordshire? There are no additional plans for commuter services under the proposals. There is no additional infrastructure, other than the HS2 route itself, so there is no immediate benefit.

Patrick McLoughlin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants us to have a detailed timetable for 10 years’ time, but extra capacity will become available for new services. I believe that Stoke-on-Trent will benefit greatly from HS2 because of its link, its service and its closeness to Crewe. We then have to improve some of the road structures in and around Stoke-on-Trent so that people can receive the benefit. That will represent far more  investment than Stoke-on-Trent saw in any year under a Labour Government, so we can be rightly proud of what we are doing.
I fully accept—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State addressed this—that any big infrastructure project will always lead to certain people being inconvenienced. If there was a way of ensuring that people would not be inconvenienced, we would all move for it. I am afraid that inconvenience is inevitable. It is worth remembering that the first time a railway was proposed between Birmingham and London, the idea was defeated in the House of Commons because everybody said that the canals were perfectly adequate. That was part of the problem with the west coast main line, and it is why certain diversions were built into it.
The line from the west midlands to Crewe will be of significant benefit to transport infrastructure in this country, the United Kingdom as a whole and our cities outside London by creating connectivity not just between London and our cities, but between those cities. The line is important, and it is moving in the right direction. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on this proposal.

Drew Hendry: As we look at the current Secretary of State for Transport and his predecessors around him on the Conservative Benches, it is like old times.
The Scottish National party supports the development of the HS2 project, which we have discussed on a number of occasions. Even the Secretary of State would concede that the Scottish Government have worked very positively to advance the project, but that does not mean we are not critical of quite a number of aspects  of it.
For HS2 to establish the benefits that have been suggested, it needs to be expanded much further and much faster—and, as we have heard, not just to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, but to Scotland, and with some haste. If this project was to be truly inclusive—the Secretary of State talked about the parity in this family of nations that we are supposed to have—there is a strong argument that HS2 should have started in Scotland and made its way down through the north of England, arriving eventually at London. The economic benefits would have been dramatic had that choice been made, and it was indeed a choice. Had the Government been serious about including the nations of the UK, that could have been done. While we are talking about being serious about being inclusive, let me say that if journey times are to be improved, perhaps one thing that would help to reduce delays dramatically, as this is one key reason for delays in Scotland, would be the devolution of Network Rail. Even at this late stage, the UK Government can make a difference if they choose to do so by committing to extending the service to Scotland without hesitation.

Robert Goodwill: The hon. Gentleman talks about starting the project in Scotland, but that is not a sensible idea at all. The whole point about capacity is that every morning we have 5,000 people standing on trains into London  Euston and 3,000 standing into Birmingham New Street. If the project started in Scotland, that would just mean more Scottish people standing on trains as they tried to get into the capital.

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have enjoyed debating with him and that I respect him greatly, but we always end up highlighting the fact that none of that was even looked at. No research was conducted on it. Unless he is willing to intervene to tell me about research that was conducted—[Interruption.] That tells us everything about how—

Robert Goodwill: rose—

Drew Hendry: The hon. Gentleman wants to get in—please do.

Robert Goodwill: It is patently obvious from all the traffic flows and the passenger numbers that as one gets closer to the capital, the congestion due to passenger numbers builds. As I say, we have 5,000 people standing every morning into London Euston, and there would be more Scottish people standing if we did not start in London and work our way up. It is, however, great that the time saving is going to benefit people in Scotland from day one.

Drew Hendry: I wish to remain consensual throughout this debate, but I must point out, once again, that all the hon. Gentleman has done is to confirm that no work had been done to look at the economic benefits for Scotland and the north of England.
The Secretary of State’s argument that Scotland will already be on the HS2 line is weak. I agree that journey times to and from Scotland will be faster, by virtue of the increased speed in the south of England, but given that Scotland and its people are paying for a proportion of the new infrastructure, it would be wholly wrong for the new infrastructure not to come also to Scotland.
We support HS2 because of the benefits it could and should bring, but those benefits could be greater if the missing investment was made. Clarity is also required, and with some urgency, on the Barnett consequentials. The question of the Barnett consequentials has been raised again in this House today, yet the Government have failed time and again to answer it, despite being asked to do so on many occasions.
Although this will not be well received by Conservative Members, I agree with the shadow Minister that questions need to be asked about the governance and management of HS2, given the absolute shambles the Government have got themselves into with the contract—and, of course, the honours system as well. We are talking about £2 billion-worth of contracts awarded after profit warnings were issued. Why did the Government want Carillion to continue after a 70% drop in the share price and the issuing of profit warnings? Ministers need to give answers about that, and they should take the opportunity to provide them now. There are clear examples to show that the Government knew there were more than just superficial problems at Carillion, yet the contracts just continued. Why was that?
I said earlier that the Scottish Government are committed to working in a continuing partnership to reduce rail journey times—we are working closely with the Minister  to hit the three-hour target—but the Government still have not recommended a route to Scotland. Is it going to be on the east or the west coast? They must now start to work on the best options for Scotland, consider the benefits and different business cases, albeit belatedly, and deliver so that people in Scotland get some value.
If the Government share the ambition of delivering sub-three-hour journey times, we will support that, but the project should not be about only times or the physical build. As the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, we must consider skills and opportunities. He mentioned Crewe and other locations, but unfortunately he did not mention Scotland. This project can and should build skills, expertise, capability and jobs for a generation, but it also needs to be inclusive in terms of its opportunities and STEM objectives. We should be alive to the chance to provide opportunities to young people, especially girls and young women, who do not get mentioned enough in this context. Scotland has successfully delivered major infrastructure projects, with the Borders rail link a prime example among many others, and is already positioning itself as a hub for rail expertise. The Heriot-Watt high-speed rail centre of excellence has put Scotland firmly on the map as a place for specialist high-speed rail knowledge.
Let us expand the network to Scotland with some hitherto unseen urgency. Let us hear the answers on the Barnett consequentials. Let us have guarantees from the Government on the future governance of the project. If a true partnership is desired, as the Secretary of State has stated, let us see some ambition on the preferred route, a commitment to utilising the expertise and talent of the men and women of Scotland, and investment in our centre of excellence.

Michael Fabricant: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while recognising the increasing need for additional north-south rail line capacity to relieve congestion on the West Coast Main Line south of the Midlands and to improve connectivity between major cities and with London, declines to give the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill a Second Reading because (1) there are better ways to address any rail capacity issues north of the Midlands, (2) the line set out in the Bill is routed through unspoiled countryside unnecessarily damaging the environment including wildlife habitats, ancient woodlands and waterways, fails to connect via HS2 Phase 1 with HS1, the Channel Tunnel and the European continent, fails to connect directly through HS2 Phase 1 with potential airport hubs for London and the south-east of England, and fails to connect directly to existing major mainline stations and the existing rail network, (3) the Bill provides inadequate compensation to those blighted by the route and those whose property is subject to compulsory purchase orders, (4) the Bill fails to provide for sufficient public transport to disperse HS2 passengers disembarking at London Euston, and (5) the Bill does not implement a more environmentally sympathetic, better integrated, and more cost-effective route, such as the route originally proposed by Arup which would have used existing transport corridors minimising environmental damage and reducing costs by around £10 billion, and which would have connected directly with HS1 and the continent, London Heathrow Airport, Birmingham International Airport, and major conurbations.”
First, may I say how much I welcomed the Secretary of State’s answer to my question about Lichfield? Many of my constituents will be reassured by what he said.  If he is half as good as his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), he will be very good indeed.
Having said that, I am afraid that I must now destroy the cosy consensus that seems to be prevailing on the Opposition and Government Benches. I shall explain why. When HS2 was first envisioned, people spoke about people in Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham being able to get on to a high-speed train and end up in Paris, Lille and, indeed, even Berlin, with Deutsche Bahn. But that is not to be. We heard from the shadow Minister that HS2 is an integrated railway, but it is not. It is nothing like that at all.
Let me present a hypothetical situation. One of my constituents from Lichfield, together with his wife, two children and all their luggage, decide that they are going to give up travelling by dirty aircraft and will instead travel by clean rail down to Paris. What is the reality going to be? Imagine my constituent, the wife, the children and the baggage. They get on the train at Lichfield City station—although this applies to stations up and down the country—and end up at Birmingham New Street. Then what happens? They have to leave Birmingham New Street with the two children and all their bags and walk for 22 minutes. At this point, I wish to praise Councillor Tony Thompson in Lichfield who has done the walk and timed it. Without the children and all the bags, it took him 22 minutes to tramp across Birmingham to get to Curzon Street to the proposed HS2 station.
After all that, can the family then relax, knowing that they will end up in Paris? No, they cannot—because, instead, the train arrives at Euston. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, when he was Mayor of London, pointed out, quite rightly, that Euston has a capacity problem—not with trains arriving, because Euston is to be extended, but with getting people away from Euston, because there is not the public transport. Even if there was sufficient capacity, the family then have to tramp, yet again, either down a series of escalators and back up again, with children and with all the bags, or they walk across London to get to St Pancras.

Ian Mearns: rose—

Michael Fabricant: I will give way in a moment.
Finally, when they get to St Pancras, they can settle on the train. So much for a quick and easy journey from the north-east down to Paris.

Ian Mearns: rose—

Michael Fabricant: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman who has been trying to get in.

Ian Mearns: For 15 months, I was a member of the HS2 Bill Committee, and I did that very walk myself. I did not get a friendly councillor to do it for me; I did it myself. It took about six to eight minutes top whack. I know that, in future, the route will be better than it was then because an awful lot of construction work was going on around New Street at the time. It was six to eight minutes top whack.

Michael Fabricant: But the hon. Gentleman is thin, lithe and athletic. I am talking about a harried husband, a wife, squabbling children and loads of luggage. That is what I am talking about.

Chris Grayling: May I take my hon. Friend slightly closer to home, not perhaps in his own constituency, but alongside? Those people who seek to commute from Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham International and intermediate stations into Birmingham find that their daily journey is delayed by the fact that this line, which is two-track only and which can only be two-track, has express trains, local trains, intermediate trains to Northampton and even some freight trains on it. It is chaotic and jammed all the time. HS2 takes off the express trains and gives those people a better commute into Birmingham. Is that not something that the west midlands should champion?

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I do not think that there is any argument about the capacity problem. It was he, or perhaps it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales, who said that the west coast main line is operating at 100% capacity and that it is the busiest line in Europe. In fact, it is a triumph in that people have moved on to those trains in their millions since the time when a Labour Government were in power, and certainly since the time of nationalisation—and we all remember those curling sandwiches. Of course there are advantages, too, but it could have been done in a much better way. It is not a connected service. What do we have now? The genesis of it all began with Lord Adonis who, in 2007, came up with the idea of the route. I can tell Members that he was astonished when the Conservative Government accepted that route. Again, let me say very clearly that I am arguing not against HS2 itself, but against the way in which it is being executed. That is what I am criticising. Lord Adonis wanted an ultra-high-speed line. As a consequence, he got rulers on maps, drew straight lines, crashing through countryside, which had previously not been damaged, destroying ancient woodlands, and generally messing up the entire area.

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I do not agree with the overall drift of where his speech is leading us to, but he makes a very good point, which is about the importance of connectivity. There is no point in spending billions of pounds on a brilliant new service unless the connectivity is there. Does he agree that, when we look at other projects, we know that the ones that work—wherever they are in the world—are ones where a person can get off one line, and move swiftly and easily, in comfort, to another line, or another piece of transport.

Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. And that, really, is my main criticism of HS2—that it is not integrated. We cannot get on in Birmingham and end up in France and it does not connect with HS1. The sadness is that Arup originally came up with a proposal that would have done just that. The original Arup proposal would have been more on the surface, using existing transport corridors, so it would have been £10 billion to £12 billion cheaper. At the same time, it would have been less environmentally damaging, and that would have made sense. Under Arup’s plan,  we would have been able to get on a train at Birmingham New Street and, as a consequence, end up in France. But no—because we were at that point obsessed with running at ultra-high speed, we decided that we would do this project with straight lines going through virgin countryside.
Thank goodness that there will now be kinks and loops—thanks, in part, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales—so that HS2 does not go smashing through the middle of Lichfield cathedral or, indeed, so that it does not damage Tatton. I remember that my former right hon. Friend, George Osborne, managed to get a few kinks in the line as well. But do you know what the irony is, Madam Deputy Speaker? The irony is that, because of all the kinks and loops, HS2 trains cannot now travel at ultra-high speed. Quite frankly, with the benefit of hindsight, we could have had a more connected train service that was less environmentally damaging and £12 billion cheaper than the present one. At the same time , it could have been something that people would cherish in years to come. Yes, they may cherish the route from Coventry to Birmingham, but I think that young people wanting to travel seamlessly to the continent by train will be sorely disappointed.
Now, I mentioned how phase 2a would affect Lichfield. By the way, Lichfield has had a double whammy because we were affected by phase 1 and are now being affected by phase 2a. Phase 2a will cause the loss or damage of 18 ancient woodlands—just on that short route—and the loss of 27 veteran trees between Lichfield and Crewe.

Anna Soubry: Twenty-seven?

Michael Fabricant: Twenty-seven, yes. Do not knock that, though. We are talking about ancient trees and woodlands, which cannot be repeated. We cannot dig them up and then replant them because—hey!—they are not ancient anymore. The definition of an ancient woodland is that it has to be 400 years old with a soil structure that can only be generated when it is 400 years old. As the Secretary of State said, all large infrastructure projects will cause damage, and of course I accept that. But if we had gone with the original Arup route, which Lord Adonis thought would be far too slow—it would only run at high speed, not ultra-high speed—we would not have had so much damage.
I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) in the Chamber. He ought to be a right hon. Member because he chaired the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Bill Select Committee for phase 1. I praise all the Members who served on that Committee, because at least I can offer my constituents the hope that, if the Committee that will be set up if this Bill goes through Parliament is half as good as his Committee, there will be improvements. If people petition and petition well, there will be changes to the route.
Finally, I re-emphasise the point I made earlier in a question to the Secretary of State. It is important that we do not lose sight of the west coast main line and continued passenger services. I believe that 44 railway stations on the west coast main line will not be directly affected or served by HS2. We still need our Virgin trains and our slower trains including the excellent service that is now being provided by London Northwestern  Railway, which succeeded London Midland, which, incidentally, started off badly but improved a lot during its franchise period.
There will come a time when the Pendolinos will become unusable because they have reached their age limit. It is hugely important that the Department for Transport begins to start thinking about a replacement for that high-speed service, because Lichfield commuters do not just commute into Birmingham, Stafford and places like that—they are commuting down to London daily. One very senior guy at the BBC said to me, “Michael, I don’t have to send my kids to a private school”—this is the BBC for you, but we know about their salaries—“because the schools are so good in Lichfield, and I can afford to live in a large house with lots of land around me, which of course I could never do in London.” That is thanks to the Pendolino service.

Rachel Maclean: With regard to broadcasters and where they could be located for their jobs, does my hon. Friend not think that HS2 is a great argument for Channel 4 to be relocated to the west midlands, because the Channel 4 executives could commute from London, or wherever they like to live? They could be based in Lichfield and make their programmes there.

Michael Fabricant: They could be based in Lichfield, yes, or in Birmingham. I hope that Channel 4 will indeed move out of London. I know that this is completely out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am now putting in our bid for the west midlands on that.
I have explained why I cannot support this Bill. I will not press my amendment to a vote, but if, as I expect, there is going to be a Division on the substantive motion, I am afraid that I will have to vote against the Government on this occasion.

Anna Soubry: Shame!

Michael Fabricant: It is a shame, as my right hon. Friend says. I very rarely vote against my own Government, because we are so successful in what we do, but there is this blindness about the design of HS2—and it has permeated across to the Labour Front Bench as well.  I could not believe it when the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said that it is an integrated railway line, when it very clearly is not. I will vote against this Bill, and I hope that other colleagues in the House will join me.

Laura Smith: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I am not sure if my speech will be quite as colourful, I must say.
The significance of this Bill for my constituents cannot be overstated. Crewe is a proud railway town. In fact, it is believed that Crewe was named after the railway station, rather than the other way around. The current station was completed in 1837 and has been recognised as one of the most historically significant railway stations in the world. Crewe was chosen after the nearby town of Winsford rejected an earlier proposal, as had landowners in Nantwich, which is also in my constituency. Nowadays, there are 23 trains passing through the station every hour, with additional, less frequent, services. The railway  has shaped our history, our heritage and our culture in my constituency. It still plays a part in our local industry at Crewe Works, which has been owned by Bombardier since 2001. At its height, Crewe Works employed more than 20,000 people, but that dropped to fewer than 1,000 just over a decade ago. That gives a feel of just how much my constituency has changed.
Many of my constituents see HS2 as an opportunity for Crewe to regenerate economically and reconnect with its identity as a key player in the country’s national transport strategy. Today, I will set out the reasons why I support the Bill and the case for HS2—a project that was, indeed, proposed by a Labour Government. In doing so, I hasten to add that my support for the project is not unconditional.
One reason why HS2 has had support in my constituency is that it is not simply another project designed for the benefit of the south-east, but would benefit regions across the country. However, there are concerns in Crewe and Nantwich that as the project increasingly comes under budgetary strain, the Treasury might lack the appetite for the level of spending needed to deliver the greatest return on investment.
I am particularly concerned by comments made previously by the Secretary of State for Transport that decisions regarding the future of my constituency will be subject to affordability. We cannot afford not to get this right. As such, I ask the Secretary of State to clarify today when we will hear the outcome of the Crewe hub consultation and the Government’s plans.
If all that HS2 achieves is a fast track between London, Birmingham and Manchester, there is a very real possibility that it will reduce my constituency to little more than a bedsit on a commuter belt, where the next generation are priced out of living in the towns that they grew up in.

Helen Jones: I apologise that I could not be here for the beginning of the debate. I fully support my hon. Friend on the need for a proper, integrated hub at Crewe, not least because that makes the spur that was proposed through Warrington absolutely redundant. A proper hub would enable many more towns in the north-west to benefit from HS2.

Laura Smith: I agree, and I will come on to connectivity shortly.
Such short-sightedness would be a huge strategic miscalculation and a missed opportunity to future-proof towns such as those in my constituency from the troubling economic trends that we face. This cannot be about helping to expand the cities at the expense of squeezing out growth in the communities that I represent.
Limiting the service to two stops per hour at Crewe is simply a nonsensical proposal that will not only hold back my constituency for generations but will have consequences for areas beyond the north of Crewe and north Wales. For Government to overlook the clear business case for seven stops per hour at Crewe, or to act as a barrier to the strong local and regional ambitions, would be unforgivable.
Regional inequality is a major threat to the UK economy. Despite talk of a northern powerhouse, we are being presented with further evidence that the north-south divide remains as deep as it has ever been. Many living  in left-behind towns look to the past with nostalgia and to the future with cynicism—and who can blame them? Their communities have suffered all the worst consequences of aggressive globalisation, and for very little reward. In Crewe and Nantwich, there are almost 4,000 children living in poverty, and wages are below the UK average. In fact, 28% of workers are paid less than the living wage, which is worse than the average for the north-west. Young people struggle to see a future filled with opportunities, and work no longer provides an escape route from poverty for struggling families.
In many ways, it is getting worse. A report this month by IPPR North suggests that the attainment gap between the north and the rest of England has widened to 5% at NVQ4 level, setting the north up to be the worst affected by an adult skills crisis. Another report this month by the Centre for Cities predicts that the rise of robots will deepen the economic divide if current trends continue, with almost a third of jobs in the north and the midlands vulnerable to automation and globalisation. Another report by IPPR North this month indicates that planned transport investment in London is two and a half times higher per person than in the north of England.
Many northern towns and cities are still struggling to recover from the industrial decline of the 1970s and 1980s, and this north-south divide threatens to hold back our national productivity. Some businesses choose to pay almost four times as much per square foot for their premises in London and the south because of poor connectivity in the north. Decades of inaction by successive Governments have left the north at the mercy of the markets.
There is no greater example of the need for Government intervention and strategic economic planning than the unsustainable situation we find ourselves in. The market has failed to provide any answers for the north, and HS2 provides one way in which the Government can begin to address this problem as part of a wider strategy. If delivered properly, this project will place my constituency at the heart of the UK’s most vibrant economic area, providing a successful and sustainable future for the next generation. Britain’s future in the world is surely as a knowledge-based economy, excelling in areas such as high-tech manufacturing. Such an economy will require a national transport strategy that prioritises high levels of connectivity. This requires increasing capacity and reliability, not just decreasing journey times.
Crewe is already a gateway station for the north-west, with regional and long-distance connections to the wider north-west, the east midlands and Wales. The phase 2a link will help to provide much-needed additional capacity for freight and will improve reliability for commuter services. It should be welcomed that the Government have brought forward the opening of the phase 2a link to 2027 as that will provide benefits to the north-west and beyond. Making the most out of connecting HS2, classic rail and the motorway network at Crewe could create 120,000 jobs across seven major local authority areas. Work undertaken by the Constellation Partnership indicates that 20,000 jobs would be created at the Crewe hub campus alone, with 17,000 additional jobs in the wider area.
My vision for HS2 is not as an end in itself, benefiting only businesses and commuters, but as a catalyst for the radical rebalancing of our economy, redistributing wealth  from London to places such as Crewe and Nantwich and the rest of the UK. I must stress that this is not about asking London to lose out to the north; it is simply about achieving sustainability for London while allowing the north to achieve its full potential, which will benefit our entire country.
I want everybody in my constituency to feel the benefits of HS2, even if they never ride a train in their lives. Rail lines from Crewe reach out across to the smaller towns of Cheshire, to Warrington and the Wirral, to Manchester and Liverpool, to Lancashire, Shrewsbury, Derby and Stoke, and even to Scotland and Wales. A proper regional hub at Crewe, with a new northern junction to allow for maximum onward connectivity, will provide unrivalled opportunities for the whole of Cheshire, north Staffordshire and beyond. It is imperative that Crewe has direct high-speed services to key destinations, including London, Old Oak Common, Birmingham, Manchester airport, Manchester Piccadilly, Preston, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.
As such, I support not only this Bill, but expanding the scope of the current HS2 programme to enable the interventions needed to deliver the services I have described. Although the services that run on our high-speed network will not be determined by statute, our legislative framework will determine what we are capable of achieving. It is vital that this Bill is supported today, and that future Bills do not limit our options. A proper regional hub could take advantage of existing connectivity and extend the benefits of HS2 to millions of people in the north, including those in our often forgotten towns beyond the major cities.

Bob Seely: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith). May I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) to her new role and wish her all the best? It is very good to see her on the Front Bench.
I welcome the Government’s very considerable investment in our rail system—it is very good to see—and I support their ambitious railway agenda. There are lots of good things happening in our railway system. However, I find it hard to believe that the £52 billion being spent on HS2 could not have been better spent more broadly across the system.
I am not opposing or voting against the Bill, because I think there is little point: HS2 is going to happen. However, I think it would have been significantly better for our economy to have prioritised HS3, which is a good idea and clearly important for the north of this country, and then, if HS2 was to be built, to have started in the north and worked south, rather than the other way around.
What seems to be clear is that HS2 is extraordinarily expensive. There are poor returns, and by the Government’s own admission, a 1:2.3 ratio of return is extremely poor. HS2 harms the environment. It seems to be a bit of a muddle. Once we had straight lines and we were going superfast. Then we had bends and we could not go superfast. Then the stations did not quite integrate, and there does seem to be a problem with that integration up and down the network, which other Members have rightly spoken about.
However, my main concern is the cost to the other parts of the rail network. Again, Members have spoken eloquently about the need for greater capacity. HS2 does nothing for capacity for southern rail or for south-west rail. The south-west rail network is crying out for investment. We need rail flyovers at Woking and at Basingstoke to get more services on that line. We need to update the signalling system between Waterloo and Woking, and eventually elsewhere on the line, to improve speeds and services. We need infrastructure on the Portsmouth line, to increase capacity. Getting from London to Portsmouth, you travel at an average speed of around 45 miles an hour, and the idea that we are spending billions building a rail network to go superfast up north when we are still travelling at branch-line speeds on mainline routes in the south of England is very galling to very many constituents in constituencies across southern England.
We need also, probably, to double the track between Southampton and Basingstoke. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State talked about a bright new future for the railways. We do not see that on southern, and we do not see it on south-west rail main lines. If I remember correctly, my right hon. Friend, whose agenda I very strongly support and for whom I have a high regard personally, has assured me that south-west rail projects are not affected by the HS2 project. So can he—or can she—put on record a confirmation that HS2 has not delayed, or has not affected the funding and supply of, south-west rail mainline improvements, or of Crossrail 2, which will benefit the users of south-west rail, if they use Clapham?

Michelle Donelan: I agree, and I want to see benefits to connectivity in my constituency, including a new station in Corsham. But will my hon. Friend accept that HS2 does benefit the UK as a whole, in the form of jobs, as I said, or because we all have a wealth of SMEs in our constituencies whose supply chains and customers are based throughout the UK, and they can only benefit from this extra connectivity?

Bob Seely: In principle, my hon. Friend makes a very good point and I thank her for her intervention. The problem is this. I return to the profit ratio—or the cost-benefit ratio. If any of us were to go to a Minister or Government Department and say, “This is a fantastic project and it has a ratio of 1:2.3,”—which are the Government’s own figures for HS2—we would get laughed at. To get a project off the ground, according to Green Book assessments, a ratio of 1:5 upwards is needed, and preferably 1:7. So 1:2.3 is a very poor return for Government money by the Government’s own figures. Anything that helps, within reason, expenditure and our economy is to be welcomed, but by the Government’s own figures this cost-benefit is dubious. I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention.
If HS2 will cause no delay to south-west rail projects, will my right hon. Friend commit to prioritising the necessary work on the south-west rail route that could speed up journey times between London and south coast destinations such as Portsmouth, Southampton, Bournemouth and, yes, the Isle of Wight—my constituency? I know that my right hon. Friend is a user of south-west rail and feels the pain of the half a million people who travel in to Waterloo every day. Will he—or will she—  consider setting Network Rail and the new franchise a speed target of a 60-minute service to Southampton and Portsmouth? You can get two trains an hour down the main line to Southampton. They take about one hour 17 at the moment. If we are interested in high-speed rail, can we set a new target of getting people to Southampton and Portsmouth within the hour?
In addition, I will write to my right hon. Friend tomorrow in connection with the Island. He has been kind enough to sound positive about the needs of my constituents for better public transport, especially since we get precious little infrastructure money. In my letter, I will ask about the programme of reopening branch lines and investing in the Island line. Earlier this month, Isle of Wight Council voted to support a feasibility study on extending the branch line in possibly two directions and, working with our wonderful heritage line, the Havenstreet steam railway, to get people into Ryde, which would be very important.
My letter will cover support for investment, support for a feasibility study, and, dependent on the results of that study, support for the branch line and capital work on Ryde Pier Head to ensure that the railway line there stays feasible, continues and has a future. I am supportive of my right hon. Friend on his agenda, which is excellent, but will you assure me, considering that you are spending £52 billion on one line, that the Department will not tell me that you cannot afford a feasibility study?

Eleanor Laing: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister, he must say the Minister, not you. I apologise for interrupting him, but this is becoming a widespread habit of Members all around the House and it must not go on. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is the person who is hearing this, and I am sure that other people will now be rather more careful. He is not a consistent offender; he is normally very proper in his behaviour.

Bob Seely: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do apologise; I had noticed that I had written a few yous, and I scrubbed them out and put hes and shes. If my notes still contained a few yous, I apologise. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here, I was trying to work out whether I should be using he or she, or whether we have reached a post-gender age for Ministers as well as for the rest of us.

Eleanor Laing: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House. The word “Minister” is very useful, because it covers just about everything and anyone, no matter which gender they might be on that particular day.

Bob Seely: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On that point, I will wind up.
I am very supportive of the Minister’s agenda, whichever one we are talking about, but given that we are spending a great deal of money, will the Minister assure me that the Department will not be telling me that a feasibility study is not possible because of cost? Will the Minister assure me that if a feasibility study recommends extension of our lines, that will be supported, given that the costs involved, £10 million to £30 million, are margins of error in Government accounting in the Department of Transport? Will the Minister assure me that there will  be support for infrastructure projects both for the South Western Railway network and the Island line, notwithstanding the considerable amounts of money that are been spent elsewhere?

Chris Matheson: What a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely). If he will forgive me, I might disagree with him on one point. In my view—the figures are overwhelming—the investment in infrastructure in London and the south-east, although it perhaps does not extend entirely down to his patch, is around nine or 10 times as much as that in my area in the north-west and the north of England. Plenty of people will look at the HS2 expenditure and say it is about time that the north-west of England got some expenditure.
In principle, I am very much in favour of HS2—and HS3, HS4 and HS5. Infrastructure spending is good for the economy; it generates growth, it drives growth and connectivity, and it is a good thing for the whole country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), however, I share the concern that what we might get is, to coin a railway phrase, the wrong type of HS2, on the basis that all we will have is a fast line linking London, Birmingham and Manchester, and no benefits will accrue to the surrounding areas. In terms of growth in this country, the cities are already overheating, whereas towns and counties—

Kevin Hollinrake: rose—

Chris Matheson: I give way to my good friend.

Kevin Hollinrake: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore welcome the £300 million that has been set aside to connect HS2 with HS3—also known as Northern Powerhouse Rail—which will stretch from the west coast of the north to the east coast?

Chris Matheson: I will welcome it when it is built and when we actually have something going. HS3, or Northern Powerhouse Rail, is a slogan rather than a railway, and I look forward to its being a railway rather than a slogan. There is a real danger that the benefits that accrue will not do so for the whole country. This is a national project and the benefits that derive from it should be national, too.
In particular, I want to discuss the Crewe hub, which I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State refer to several times. We get lots of positive, warm words—if that praise is not too derogatory—about the importance that Ministers at the Department for Transport attach to the Crewe hub. However, time and again, after two years of pressing, we still have had no firm details about what format it will take or how it will integrate into the rest of the network.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), the shadow Secretary of State, talking about the need for HS2 to be integrated into the rest of the network. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) might have misunderstood, but that was very much my understanding, and that is exactly where the Crewe hub would come in. With the  greatest respect to my good friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), Crewe does not have a large enough population to justify an HS2 station, but the lines and connectivity radiating from it as a central hub in that part of the north-west and the north midlands would provide the services and the weight of gravity to make the Crewe hub essential to HS2.

Michael Fabricant: What the hon. Gentleman says about Crewe is absolutely right, but does he understand my disappointment that there will be two separate stations in Birmingham and two separate stations in London, instead of it being integrated there as well? While the north is important, so are the midlands and the south.

Chris Matheson: I do understand the hon. Gentleman’s disappointment. Actually, I share some of it, and if he bears with me I will come on to that in a moment.
The lines that would radiate from Crewe would include the existing west coast main line, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) talked about, so Warrington, Wigan and south Lancashire would benefit, as would my constituency and hopefully, the north Wales line. Again, I say to Ministers that for the real benefits to accrue, the Chester and north Wales line would need to be electrified; I have not given up on that, even if they have.
The Crewe hub would mesh nicely with the Growth Track 360 proposals that leaders in Cheshire West and Chester and across the border in north Wales have put together to really try to mesh our railway offerings. I know that Ministers have seen those. My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State was extremely helpful when I talked to him about my concerns. He took them to HS2 Ltd, which was asked about the benefits that somebody from Chester might gain. This is where I come back to the hon. Member for Lichfield. Apparently, under the current HS2 proposals, those benefits would include HS2 freeing up capacity on the west coast main line, so that more trains would be able to go through, between Chester and Lichfield, on that line. He talked about the potential, over time, for the west coast main line to wither on the vine, and I share that concern. Those of us who are not in London, Birmingham or Manchester may not get the full benefits, because we will be asked to take the benefits of the west coast main line instead. Much as those are benefits, that is not the high-speed line on offer.
I detect a certain disconnect—I ask Ministers to look carefully at this—between HS2 Ltd and its proposals and the plans from Network Rail and the Department for Transport for the development of the railways. HS2 Ltd has been tasked with building the HS2 line and some amorphous idea of a Crewe hub, but we are still not sure what or exactly where it is in Crewe or of the layout of Crewe station. The plans do not fit in with the broader sub-regional plans for the growth of the railways. All HS2 Ltd seems concerned with is the delivery of the new high-speed line. I urge Ministers to look carefully at ensuring that the proposals for HS2 and others, such as Growth Track 360, mesh together in the connected way that my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State talked about; otherwise we will not accrue the full benefits.
I welcome the Minister to her place, and I make this plea to her: I ask that she think carefully about how the Crewe hub can be given a reality that benefits not just the big cities but north Shropshire, south Lancashire, all of Cheshire, all the railway lines radiating from Crewe, and particularly—as far as I am concerned—the Chester and north Wales line. It has to mesh together. At some point, we have to stop kicking this particular can down the road and come out with firm and deliverable proposals for a Crewe hub that will share the benefits of HS2 that will not otherwise accrue.

Maggie Throup: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and to contribute to this debate. I too welcome the new Minister to her place. I am sure we will be having many conversations over the coming months and years.
I would like to speak specifically to the reasoned amendment in the name of my hon. Friends. Although I cannot support it, I have some sympathy with it, specifically on the issue of property compensation. The compensation packages agreed under the Bill will have a significant impact and influence in the future when similar measures are agreed for phase 2b, which affects my constituency. It is extremely important, therefore, that we get it right now for those affected by phase 2a and phase 2b.
I am sure that my residents are not unique in their frustration with the process, but what are unique are the specifics around the property market in Long Eaton. The plus 10% on offer through the express purchase scheme for residents in the safeguarded area is not enough for many of my homeowners to buy a new home just two streets away. This is not acceptable. These residents, some of whom have lived in the same home for many years—often 40 years and more—are losing their homes, and for them their home is their castle. There must be an alternative for my constituents, and I hope that a way forward can be found.
I am sure that my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minster agree, as they have both said in this place, that no one should lose out as a result of HS2. On 17 July last year, the Secretary of State said:
“I am clear that I do not want people to lose out as a result of this”—[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 674.]
On 11 October, in a response to a question of mine, the Prime Minister said:
“my hon. Friend the Rail Minister is determined to see that fair and comprehensive compensation for those directly affected by the route is paid, and it will be paid as if HS2 did not exist, plus the 10% and reasonable moving costs.”—[Official Report, 11 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 328.]
I would suggest that Long Eaton is the town most affected by HS2 across the whole of the country along any part of the line. It may not have a long stretch of the rail line—indeed, it is estimated to be only 3.3 miles—but those 3.3 miles will be directly through the town on a 16-metre high viaduct. That is why it is so important to get it right for residents who are losing their homes and those left behind, and why I ask the Minister to take another look at the compensation packages, not just for my constituents but for those affected along the whole line. For residents in relatively low-cost housing areas, such as New Tythe Street and Bonsall Street in Long Eaton, I would like to suggest a scheme that encompasses an  equity share option. We should also recognise, however, that it is not just about money; it is about keeping communities together, and I believe an equity share scheme would do just that.
HS2 Ltd has a specific question to answer about why it is pursuing and progressing with special measures for the Shimmer estate in Mexborough but not applying the same principles to Long Eaton. I am also concerned by the way it is interpreting current guidelines and so often appears to be working against residents rather than with them.
It is also important to consider the impact that HS2 will have on businesses that are blighted by the project. For my local businesses, the uncertainty has existed since early January 2013. It has been over five years, with no end in sight yet. It is imperative for HS2 Ltd to improve on its poor record of engagement by engaging in early and meaningful interaction with businesses on which compulsory purchase orders have been served.

Michael Fabricant: It was certainly my experience with phase 1 that the constant changes of personnel within HS2 Ltd caused problems. There was not just disengagement between HS2 and our constituents, but, apparently, disengagement between HS2 personnel themselves, with one hand not knowing what the other was doing.

Maggie Throup: Not just people but processes seem to change, and HS2 Ltd is not passing the information on to the chartered surveyors who are working on its behalf or to those who are working on behalf of the residents.
The Country Land and Business Association has reported that rural business owners who go through the compulsory purchase process find it difficult to secure funding to develop their businesses, or have existing finance agreements reviewed. Whether it is rural or urban, the problem is the same, as some of my local businesses in Long Eaton have discovered.
The Country Land and Business Association has also told me that the Government have committed themselves to enacting legislation to provide for advance payments, and I ask the Minister to comment on that today. Business cannot continue to be successful with such uncertainties hanging over them. As many Members know, all successful businesses have short, medium and long-term business plans but they cannot operate, given the current air of uncertainty.
Let me issue one final plea. At present, many of the areas affected by the line of route have only a very narrow safeguarded area on either side of the line. I ask the Minister to urge HS2 Ltd to be realistic about the amount of land take required, and take action now to safeguard the true area needed so that residents can get on with their lives.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not know whether my hon. Friend agrees with me that, so far, HS2 Ltd’s approach has been to limit the amount of compensation that it pays, and reduce it. Although it has, I believe, acknowledged that it may need to pay more to finalise claims, it is the interruption to lives, businesses and landowners that is causing so much aggravation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should immediately enact the legislation to provide for advance payments, and that that really must happen soon?

Maggie Throup: I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. We need to get these things moving. I know residents whose properties, under the need-to-sell scheme, were being valued at over £200,000, but under the express purchase scheme, they were offered £140,000 for the same properties. Many of these people are elderly, and they are often quite ill. It is really distressing to see what they are going through.
In 2015, the then Secretary of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who is no longer in the Chamber—said that the Government were committed to going above and beyond what was required by law, including discretionary measures to help more people. That is what we are talking about today—going “above and beyond”.
The HS2 residents charter aims to ensure that residents are treated in a fair, clear, competent and reasonable manner. I hope that, as we debate this hybrid Bill today and when, in the future, we debate the hybrid Bill providing for phase 2b, the charter will feature front and centre in the treatment of constituents along the whole HS2 route. They deserve that: it is the least we can do for them when we are taking their homes away.

Kevin Barron: May I begin by making my apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker? I was present for the opening of the debate, but I had to leave afterwards because I had a meeting with Mr Speaker. May I also welcome the Minister to the Front Bench?
I supported HS2 for many years. I truly believed that it would help to bridge the divide between the north and London in the south. I even defended the astonishing cost to my constituents, as I thought that it would benefit people in my constituency. However, I now believe that the case has become flaky at best, owing to a number of factors.
A Public Accounts Committee report raised a number of serious issues. It said there was a
“serious risk of fraud, corruption and error”
due to a combination of poor financial controls and other systems. It highlighted the fact that HS2 was set up eight years ago with substantial Government backing yet still shows a lack of organisational maturity. Given the huge budget that HS2 has been provided with, this is truly concerning.
The Government currently say HS2 will cost £55.7 billion to build. The costs originally started at £32.7 billion in 2010 and were last updated in 2015. Yet the National Audit Office stated in 2016 that HS2 was running £7 billion over-budget, which is not contested by HS2. This should put the official cost at £63 billion. I believe we can do so much more with this money, in particular on the electrification that this Government scrapped.
Most business leaders believe that if the north is to thrive the links between northern cities need to be improved, not just by having another route to London. Another Public Accounts Committee report says that HS2 made £1.6 million of unauthorised payments to staff during 2016-17; that is not a massive amount of money, but it is a shocking waste of taxpayers’ money. The report states that the unauthorised schemes proceeded due to weak internal processes and that there is no means for these sums to be recovered. It should concern us all that we have an organisation spending public money in such a way and that those sums cannot be recovered.
Both the Department and HS2 need to address these issues as a matter of urgency, and I believe that the relationship between the Department for Transport and HS2 was an unhealthy one and the necessary checks and balances were not in place. I do not think they are now either, but I will not raise issues that concern me at a local level because we are discussing a different part of the plan.
With all this in mind, I no longer believe that HS2 is likely to fulfil the aims it was designed to achieve. I will therefore vote for the amendment declining to give the Bill a Second Reading. I no longer have confidence in HS2 Ltd or the Government’s ability to oversee it.

Bill Cash: I want to make clear straight away, on behalf of my constituents and in the light of my personal views on this Bill, my vehement objection to the proposals before us. I will vote against the Bill if there is a Division, which I rather think there will be. I have discussed my objections on various occasions both before the House and locally; they derive from the vast impact on my constituents in Baldwin’s Gate, Bar Hill, Whitmore and Madeley and the surrounding area, and Yarnfield and Stone and surrounding areas, as well as from my scepticism about the Government claims on the benefits of the HS2 scheme in general.
The Government in their 2012 national planning policy framework set out the three pillars of economic, social and environmental factors that all new plans must satisfy. I find it incomprehensible that the Government can so ignore their own framework on a national scale in relation to the HS2 scheme.
First, I shall comment on the lack of benefits in the proposed phase 2 scheme. Its cost is £3.48 billion, a figure that is bound to rise as the project proceeds. This has not been enough to stop it being characterised by the Country Land and Business Association as full of
“delays, secrecy, broken promises, and poor management.”
This has directly damaged already-strained relationships with those most affected by HS2 and is preventing the complaints of those involved from being heard effectively.
Moreover, the actual overall costs, which are escalating all the time, are incredibly badly accounted for. As the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) indicated, we have seen report after report, including economic reports and independent assessments, from the Public Accounts Committee and all kinds of other committees, and it is inconceivable that the amount of money that is currently expected to provide for all this will be adequate.
There is also the problem of providing proper compensation for those affected, including advance payments, as was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I also understand the concerns being expressed by some of my constituents, who are deeply worried about the possibility of terrorist threats to the service. Associated with those threats is the inevitable delay that will be built in to the security needed to avoid them. That will increase the amount of time it takes people to get on to the trains. HS2 might go very fast, and it might increase capacity, but there is no doubt that there will also be an enormous amount of delay, because its security arrangements will have to be similar to those used for other methods of travel such as air.
Phase 2 of HS2 will also have an immensely destructive effect on the environment. The Woodland Trust has noted that, unbelievably, given the impact on the environment that phase 1 will have, phase 2a will be more destructive per kilometre. The whole scheme will damage or destroy 98 ancient woods, with 18 alone coming from phase 2a. Over 10.5 hectares of irreplaceable ancient woodland will be lost in phase 2a, as well as at least 27 ancient and veteran trees. That loss is completely unacceptable.
The environmental impact does not end there. The National Trust has stated that phase 2a of HS2 will
“impact adversely on the conservation of the special places”
that it is charged with conserving, operating and managing,
“affecting both the experience of our visitors and the lives and livelihoods of our agricultural and residential tenants.”
The preservation of our natural heritage will be jeopardised by this project.

Michael Fabricant: I am listening to my hon. Friend with considerable interest. Does he not agree that the saddest thing of all is that Arup came up with an alternative proposal that would not have damaged all those ancient woodlands because it would have used existing transport corridors? We could have done this so much better.

Bill Cash: I absolutely agree, but unfortunately that advice has not been taken.
Secondly, I have no confidence whatever in the Government’s stated outcomes for HS2 phase 2 in building costs or in social and environmental impacts. This comes from the dismal experience of their failures over their own reports on phase 1. The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee cast doubt on phase 1 from the beginning of the process, arguing that the evidence used to calculate the magnitude of benefit was out of date and unconvincing. The Library briefing shows how the benefit to cost ratio of phase 1 has fallen consistently over time. Nothing has been done to address these flaws in the economic modelling.
Progress on the delivery of phase 1 is similarly criticised by the National Audit Office in its 2016 review, which stated that the Department for Transport had
“set HS2 Ltd a schedule for achieving delivery readiness that was too ambitious”,
and that:
“There is a risk that the combined impact of cost and schedule pressures result in reduced programme scope and lower the benefit cost ratio.”
It also stated that:
“Effective integration of High Speed 2 with the wider UK rail system is challenging and poses risks to value for money”.
The NAO attacks the cost estimates for phase 2, which it says are
“at a much earlier stage of development than phase 1”,
with some elements currently unfunded. For the past four years, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority has put HS2 just one step above appearing what it defines as
“unachievable unless significant, urgent and often substantial action is taken.”
I ask the Minister what evidence there is that this will be done.
Cost overruns and delays have long been associated with public construction, but HS2 dwarfs the problems of the past. Think about the amount that could be made available to the public services if these billions and billions of pounds went towards something other than this white elephant in the making. We are doomed to exist in a perpetual cycle of departmental over-promising and under-delivering. In the light of concerns about the phase 1 Bill, it is impossible to trust the Government’s assertions as to the benefits of phase 2.
Thirdly, I must cast doubt over the ability of HS2 Ltd. The Public Accounts Committee accuses HS2 Ltd of having a culture
“of failing to provide full and accurate information to those responsible for holding it to account”
and states that it
“does not have in place the basic controls needed to protect public money.”
There cannot be a bigger condemnation than that. Those basic failures underline the incompetence with which the project has been conducted. Most damningly, the PAC accuses both HS2 Ltd and the Department of not appearing
“to understand the risks to the successful delivery of the programme”.
This is a Second Reading debate, and I am saying that all the reports indicate that we can have no trust in how the principal objectives of the project are being conducted. That is evident in the employment of Carillion as a key contractor on the project. A clear lack of oversight and due diligence has jeopardised public money. Those arguments mean that the Bill fails to meet the standards required of this House.
Moving to the local issues that affect my constituents, I am thoroughly dismayed with the entire project. Not only does the proposal carve through my entire constituency from top to bottom, without any immediate benefit to my constituents in terms of communication or railway stops, but many will acknowledge that the current west coast main line provides a good service and short journey times. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham has indicated, this HS2 project will be overtaken by new technologies, such as the possibility of a maglev system or a hyperloop system, and the technology used in the HS2 project is increasingly out of date. Within the timespan for the completion of the project, the money would be better spent on other programmes and public services.

Cheryl Gillan: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the project involved running autonomous passenger and freight vehicles or other vehicles of the future up and down the line, it would probably be slightly more popular? The trouble is that the technology and the whole approach involved will produce something that is from the last century.

Bill Cash: That is completely right. It is also perhaps true that travel times were quicker in those days than they are now. This project is about not simply capacity but efficiency, and I do not believe that its objectives will be achieved.
Turning to my local objections, a railhead will be established at Yarnfield during the construction period and will later be turned into a permanent maintenance facility. The relocation of the planned facility away  from the original destination in Crewe has caused massive consternation to all my constituents in Stone and Eccleshall, and in all villages around the area, particularly Yarnfield. On 24 November 2016, I secured a half-hour Adjournment debate on the matter, and I have spoken in a variety of meetings both locally and in the House since then. Most recently, I had a meeting with the Stone Railhead Crisis Group on Friday 19 January. I will be offering help with petitions to anybody who wants it. I have invited the Clerk of Private Bills to meet the group, and I hope that that meeting will take place soon.
I reiterate that the way in which alternatives to the final proposition were considered was appalling. The original proposal for the railhead to be at Crewe was not selected. I believe that there has been serial misdirection and misinformation about employment and environmental issues. Crewe would have been far better, but now HS2 has decided to go for Yarnfield and the vicinity thereof, which will do appalling damage to my constituents, and their traffic and schools. Every single aspect of the development will have the most serious and deleterious effect on my constituents.
The disruption due to works at Norton Bridge has already started, and the HS2 works at Stone and Swynnerton belie the notion that disruption will be minimised—it is liable only to get worse. The HS2 phase 2 environmental statement draws attention to lighting being visible along Yarnfield Lane and on the north eastern edge of Yarnfield itself. That is on top of the significant and noticeable noise that the facility will generate, the destruction of woodland, the destruction of visual landscape and the substantial noise from construction traffic.
I am also deeply concerned about the impact on the elderly, and it is shameful that retired people who seek a peaceful rural life will find their area violated. I am also concerned about the communities that are being directly destroyed, such as two properties in Shelton under Harley. There will be noise from construction on Pirehill Lane. There are also problems for several grade II listed buildings, including Blakelow farm, the water tower on Stab Lane and the Swynnerton Heath farmhouse, in addition to non-listed heritage sites such as Darlaston pool, the milestone near Cash’s pit and areas of the Shelton under Harley farm. That is yet another example of the damage that will be done.
In an update statement on 17 July 2017, the Secretary of State for Transport assured me that Yarnfield Lane will remain open. I am afraid to say that that assurance is useless without any consideration of the impact of heavy goods vehicle travelling along that narrow road, rendering it impassable during peak hours as if it were fully closed. That is bound to have a very bad effect on my constituents’ health and welfare. The proposal to use Eccleshall Road as an access and supply route will block the whole area, which is already oversubscribed.
Cold Norton is a cluster of 40 dwellings within 500 metres of the M6, but it does not appear to be included in the documents. If the works lead to the closure of the B5026 and Yarnfield Lane, my constituents in Cold Norton, Norton Bridge, Chebsey, Yarnfield, Swynnerton and Eccleshall will not have access to their main travel route into Stone. There will also be an impact on Great Bridgeford and many other areas in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy).
Trains will go straight down my entire constituency, from top to bottom. Baldwin’s Gate, Bar Hill, Whitmore and Madeley are in a rural area of outstanding natural beauty. The proposed scheme will cut straight through it, with two viaducts at the River Lea valley and Meece brook valley, and two tunnels along the way. There will be an enormous amount of construction work in a delicate area.
I will meet the Whitmore2Madeley action group on Friday 2 February to examine the proposed Whitmore construction site. I met the group in July 2017, and I have organised a meeting so that the group can meet the Clerk of Private Bills.
The environmental impact assessments show there will be significant quality-of-life problems at the Stone railhead. The views from Rectory Lane, Manor Road, Madeley cemetery, Madeley Park, Bar Hill Road and Wrinehill wood will all be negatively affected, and there will be traffic problems, too.
Then we have the A51 London Road and A53 Newcastle Road to consider. At least five footpaths will be closed in the process of construction. Communities and cultural heritage in the area will also suffer. Viaducts at Lea valley and Meece brook will prove to be eyesores. Nine properties will be permanently affected, including Rose Cottage and Wood Croft. Construction will cause impossible chaos for 29 residential properties in Whitmore and Whitmore Heath, 20 on Manor Road, 43 on Bar Hill Road and Mallard Close, and five at Moor Hall and Bower End farms. Furthermore, Hey House, a grade II listed house, will have its setting permanently degraded.
I now turn to the environmental cost in the area. Most prominent is the destruction of at least part of two woods—Whitmore wood and Barhill wood. The Woodland Trust points out the possible cost of this damage, noting that the
“Stone constituency will suffer loss or damage to 11 ancient woodlands, totalling 8.9 ha of loss. Whitmore Wood will suffer the greatest single loss of ancient woodland on the entire HS2 route. Tunnelling must be considered to avoid this loss.”
That is an attack on our woodland environment.
An additional 0.2 hectares will be lost at Barhill wood to allow for the Madeley tunnel portal. This forms just a small part of the argument for a longer, deeper tunnel to limit the environmental damage of the scheme, which I know that the Minister is examining. Such a tunnel would not completely remove the damaging local impact of this proposal, but it would nevertheless prevent the inefficient upheaval generated by involving multiple sites. There is an argument about this tunnel and I have been given certain assurances, but I am deeply concerned about whether not the money will be made available in any case—we have no certainty about that at this stage. More specifically, the proposal for a tunnel from Whitmore to Madeley would, it is argued, avoid the destruction by HS2 works of 33% of Whitmore wood, the viaduct and embankments in the Lea valley, and the disruptive work on Manor Road. This has to be pursued vigorously so that we get to the bottom of exactly what will be involved. I understand the assurances that have been given, but there are also complications due to the relationship between the northern part and the southern part of my constituency, which will doubtless be the subject of petitions from the two groups in question.
In conclusion, I will be voting against the Bill, as I did on the previous Bill for phase 1. My constituents will be petitioning against the Bill and will appear in front of the Select Committee. I urge the Government and that Committee to do all they can to pay the most careful attention to these petitions if this Bill goes through today, and to provide my constituents with every opportunity to be heard. This is a very, very big thing for them—it is massive. Hon. Members should think what it would be like if this were to happen to any other constituency on the scale it is happening to mine, which is similar to the situation in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. She has done a fantastic job and we will try to do the same in our area. At the moment, I am deeply disappointed with these proposals and I shall be voting against them.

Louise Ellman: I, too, welcome the Minister to her place. I support the Bill because it brings the potential benefits of HS2 to parts of the north earlier than was envisaged—2027 is a lot better than 2033. HS2 is visionary, but that vision will be realised only if the high-speed network is linked to the existing classic network and if regeneration takes place not just at high-speed rail stations, but in areas around those stations and beyond, in supporting transport links and investing in businesses. Local enterprise partnerships, perhaps working together and looking across regions, need to put together regional strategies to ensure that transport investment leads to more opportunities for business, employment and skills.
We have said a great deal about the importance of high-speed rail, and HS2 specifically, in bringing new capacity on to our rail line. That is, in essence, what this is all about. But in ensuring that that increased capacity is maximised, we have to look at how we can develop services on the classic line once the high-speed line has been built. We also have to remember the importance of developing freight links, as freight routes are essential. In areas such as Liverpool, among others, where port trade is developing, it is crucial that new freight lines are made available. One of the strong reasons for HS2 is that the existing lines running passenger services on the west coast main line are virtually full and there is simply no space for freight. As we develop HS2, it is essential that thought is given to freight.
Let me turn to some specific issues that affect the north in general and Liverpool in particular. I emphasise the importance of northern powerhouse rail, which has already been mentioned, for people throughout the north. I certainly welcome Transport for the North’s having been put on a statutory footing in the past couple of weeks. Nevertheless, when will the transformational changes promised by northern powerhouse rail and Transport for the North actually be realised? It is important that those changes happen so that places such as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Newcastle and Hull have much better lines of communication between them as part of the development of their economies.
I welcome the setting up of northern powerhouse rail because it goes beyond the parochial and shows that we are looking at things on a regional and cross-regional basis. That is the only way we are going to bring real economic changes to our communities, but those changes  have to take place in a reasonable timescale. They must not remain simply promises for the future that do not actually happen. It is important to restate that although northern powerhouse rail is extremely important for Liverpool and for the north, it is not an alternative to HS2. It is foolish for people to suggest that.

Mary Robinson: I, too, welcome HS2 for the very same reasons. There needs to be investment in the north. What with the £70 billion of investment in northern powerhouse rail over the next 30 years, we have an opportunity to get the vision off the ground and really make a difference in the north of England.

Louise Ellman: I agree with the hon. Lady. It would be a grave mistake to have a new high-speed line from London to Birmingham that stopped there and left the rest of the country to deal with lesser investment that will bring fewer economic development returns. We need both.
The case has long been argued that Liverpool needs a direct link to the new high-speed line. I recognise that the existing plans will bring benefit to Liverpool in terms of increased capacity and quicker journeys between Liverpool and London and between Liverpool and other cities. Nevertheless, for Liverpool to benefit in a way that is comparable to other major cities, there needs to be a direct link. Proposals have been developed for a new line so that Liverpool can have a direct link to both northern powerhouse rail and HS2. However, the exact status of those proposals is unclear to me. They have been worked up in considerable detail and put into various potential plans, but will the Minister tell me exactly what their current status is?
I asked the Secretary of State about this at the start of the debate. I welcomed his comments about his support for Liverpool—indeed, he said that he was very fond of Liverpool and reiterated that it would benefit from HS2—but he was not specific about how anything was going to happen. What progress has been made on linking Liverpool directly with both HS2 and northern powerhouse rail? Liverpool is increasingly successful, partly because of its transport links, but for its potential to be realised fully, we must improve this even more, which means having a proper connection to high-speed rail, along with investment in the classic rail system and in northern powerhouse rail.
Liverpool’s new deep-water container port is extremely important. It is important to have freight links to the northern ports. We are developing as an increasingly important logistics centre and as a visitor destination, and the growing cruise line sector is extremely exciting, which means that Liverpool needs to maximise its transport links. I hope that I will get a proper answer from the Minister on those issues.
I will just refer, too, to some concerns about how the Crewe hub is intended to develop based on the information that is available now. There are proposals to do with splitting trains at Crewe, which could adversely impact on current plans for high-speed Liverpool to London journeys. I query whether improvements will be made on Liverpool to Birmingham journeys in the way that they were first envisaged. I ask for that to be looked at again during the further discussions that will inevitably take place.
In summary, I welcome this Bill. It is a great step forward. I support high-speed rail; I think it is visionary, but for that vision to be realised, there must be continued investment in the classic line, new lines where they are required and business regeneration connected with that transport development to develop new regional economic strategies that will help to transform the north.

Jeremy Lefroy: I rise to oppose the Second Reading today for reasons very similar to those given by my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Stone (Sir William Cash). I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield—I am not at all opposed to additional rail capacity, or indeed to relatively high-speed rail capacity. The problem with the Bill before us now is that it is capable of pretty much no amendment. Yes, there can be very small adjustments made, but none of them would do anything for my constituents who are hugely affected by this development.
First, I want to talk about why the Bill, and indeed the whole project, is wrong in principle; secondly, about the specific problems that we face in the Stafford constituency; and thirdly about some suggestions for how those problems might be ameliorated. We do not need a 400 km an hour line in the United Kingdom, with the little connectivity that these proposals give us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield has said, the line is forced to go so straight that it does not take the most appropriate and sensitive route. A line of 250 km to 300 km an hour would have been easily adequate. In fact, it is very unlikely that the trains will ever reach anything more than that.
In my constituency, the line seems to head straight for the villages, and not for the open countryside. It affects four villages directly, and it is adjacent to a fifth. I would welcome any hon. Member who wants to come for a visit to note the impact on this part of the world—in Staffordshire and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. Lots of alternatives have been put forward. We have already heard about the Arup alternative. There is also the High Speed UK alternative, which provides much better connectivity between 32 prominent cities of the UK. I have looked at it in some detail. I am sure that holes can be picked in it, but those holes will be considerably smaller than the ones that can be picked in the proposals that are before us now. This is the wrong solution to a problem that we undoubtedly have. Just before people say that this is simply a nimby attitude, I point out that both my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and I have supported an extremely large rail project in our constituencies, which came at some inconvenience to our constituents, but nevertheless we saw the benefit of it. That was the Norton Bridge junction, which has increased speeds on that line, and increased capacity on the west coast main line. Indeed, before I was elected, I supported the proposal of the previous Government on the Stafford bypass, which also had an impact on my constituency.

Barry Sheerman: I was in Committee upstairs, and came down particularly to hear the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He knows that I passionately oppose HS2. I applaud his opposition,  and would love to make the visit to his constituency to see the degradation, because £100 billion of expenditure should go not on this, but on a decent railway service across the north of England.

Jeremy Lefroy: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is welcome to visit my constituency; we will make an arrangement. He will see the beautiful countryside of the upper Trent Valley, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone would also show him across Swynnerton Park and up towards Madeley, so that he can see the effect of the line on those areas.
The business case is another reason I believe this is the wrong project. We have heard from other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), that the business case is not particularly compelling. In fact, our former colleague and former Chair of the Treasury Committee, Andrew Tyrie, said that HS2
“has the weakest economic case of all projects”
within the infrastructure programme. As has been mentioned, there is a hole in the business case. That is, there is no business case that I can see for the continuation of the existing west coast main line without the revenue from the high-speed services that currently use it and generate most of its revenue. How will that line be maintained? Will it be maintained purely with the revenue from local and regional services, on which prices can be extremely low? Will that generate enough revenue? Alternatively, will it be maintained using revenue from freight services? I do not know, but there is not a business case. I have asked for it and it has not been provided. I urge the Government—particularly if they are about to put out to tender for the package of HS2 and the west coast main line—to insist that we have a proper business case for the entire package, not simply for HS2.

Bill Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that this has all the hallmarks of a vanity project and that that is why there is not a proper business case? To a certain extent, that answers his question.

Jeremy Lefroy: Well, I am not sure that it is a vanity project because, if constructed, it certainly will bring benefits to the country, although probably at much more expense than it should and at a huge cost to our constituents. When I challenged a very senior person who has been involved in this project in the past, they said, “Well, actually, it’s gone too far. We wouldn’t have started it here but we have gone too far.” The west coast main line was started, I think, in the 1850s—possibly even earlier—so this project will last for 200 years. What is a few years to get this right and to put it in the right place? I shall return to that point.
On the problems, let me start with the problems for people because people are the most important. I get pretty frustrated when HS2 staff come around to count bats. Yes, bats have importance, but my constituents are more important. HS2 is prepared to spend an awful lot of time and money counting bats and various other things, but not talking to my constituents. I have constituents who have waited for a visit for a year. These constituents have dairy farms, and HS2 wants to take 100 acres away from their farm, which would make a dairy farm unviable. Only last week, a constituent of mine suddenly received a letter from HS2 indicating that his entire property was  needed, when it had previously only needed a very small part. I have a strong objection to the uncertainty and inefficiency with which my constituents have been handled. That is not to criticise every single employee of HS2. I have met some extremely good ones. There have been some who I would praise for their work, but there have been others who, I am afraid, have fallen short.

Cheryl Gillan: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend that bats have no importance whatever, but I do agree with him that people are important. He may actually experience what I experienced in my constituency, whereby HS2 implied and said that it was going to take a property and then decided that it was not going to take it, which can also have severe implications for businesses affected in that fashion.

Jeremy Lefroy: I entirely agree. I apologise if I gave the impression that I do not care about bats at all, but I care about my constituents a little bit more. There are also the issues of the slow process, the lack of engagement, totally unnecessary arguments over valuations and a lack of knowledge. For example, one constituent of mine was not aware of what was going on. He sold the property after the line was announced and made a huge loss, but was then unable to claim for that loss because he was told that he should have gone through the process. This elderly gentleman was basically robbed of tens of thousands of pounds simply because he did not quite understand the system. Will the Minister see whether there is some way that we can get compensation for my constituent, who deserves it? I have constituents, an elderly couple, whose property is going to be boxed in by the works on HS2—literally boxed in. Yet, as things stand, they are not going to be allowed to sell their house to HS2, for reasons I fail to understand.
Then there is the impact on communities and the environment. The line runs adjacent to Great Haywood. It goes through Ingestre, Hopton, Marston and Yarlet. These are mainly old and ancient villages with strong communities. Hopton has lost a lot of its population already because people have moved out. There is not the community there that there was, because HS2, although it is renting out to people some of the properties that have been sold to it, it is not doing so quickly. Naturally, the people who are coming in, perhaps for the short term, are not able to join in the community as much as others would.

Bill Cash: Does my hon. Friend recall the impact that this will also have on Yarlet School, which is a very serious problem for those who have this fantastically good school and the facilities that go with it?

Jeremy Lefroy: I do indeed. The line goes pretty much straight through Yarlet School, and not only that but through Yarlet wood, which is one of our ancient woodlands. I think it is even noted in the Domesday Book, so it is the best part of 1,000 years old.
Another very important part of Staffordshire life that the line goes straight through, or almost straight through, is Staffordshire showground, which hosts not just the county show but hundreds of other events every year, with probably the best part of 300,000 or 400,000 people attending. It is a very important employer and economic entity within my constituency.
The line goes very close to Shugborough. The irony of this is that when the west coast main line was put through Shugborough in the 19th century, the Earl of Lichfield persuaded the railway company to build a cut-and-cover tunnel through Shugborough, which one still sees when going on the main line up to Liverpool. We have been unable to persuade HS2 to provide such tunnelling for my constituents. Clearly, where the railways would listen to the Earl of Lichfield 150 years ago and more, they do not listen to the ordinary people today who would like to have some protection from this line. The line also goes pretty much straight through the beautiful Ingestre and Tixall parklands and landscapes.
The next issue is transport infrastructure. The line cuts straight across several major roads, including the A51, the A518, the A34 and the M6, and goes over the west coast main line. As far as I can see, HS2 and Highways England do not seem to have a plan on how to manage the inevitable disruption to local, regional, and indeed national transport that is going to be caused. I hope they do have one, because the M6 must be, if not the busiest motorway in Europe, then one of the busiest, and the A34 is a kind of relief road for the M6. If both of those are going to be disrupted, particularly if it happens at the same time, the consequences for the regional and national economy, right up to Scotland, will be quite substantial.
Another problem is connectivity after HS2. Clearly, connectivity from Stafford will be better. There will be a faster journey from Stafford to London than at present. It is already an extremely good and fast journey—nobody has complained to me about it in the past—and it will, I admit, be a few minutes faster. Northbound, we are really concerned about connectivity, because we understand that the trains through Stafford and Stoke will end at Macclesfield. I have nothing against Macclesfield; in fact, it is a wonderful town. However, most of the time my constituents tend to prefer to go further to Manchester and Liverpool rather than to stop at Macclesfield. As I say, I have nothing against Macclesfield.
The next problem is the impact on businesses. Last week, I heard from a business that received, out of the blue, a letter saying, “We want all your land.” This business employs a large number of people in a rural area; it is possibly the biggest employer in that area. Yet suddenly, with literally no notice, we are suddenly told that HS2 needs the entire plot that it is working from, without any alternative.

Barry Sheerman: I rarely agree with the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but I do in this case, about this being a vanity project. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not really about connectivity or helping local industry? As he says, it will damage local industry. The French experience already shows that it does not liberate and rejuvenate the provincial cities and towns. It actually drains even more power and influence down to London and the metropolitan area around the south-east.

Jeremy Lefroy: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I fear that that will be the case unless, as speakers both in favour and against have said, connectivity is taken much more seriously. I urge Ministers to look at the proposals of High Speed UK, even if they do not like  those proposals, because it has some extremely important points to make about connectivity for other major cities in the UK.
If the line goes ahead—it seems there is a majority in the House at the moment for it, but that may change— I would like to make some proposals. First, for my constituents and my colleagues’ constituents, we must employ full-time sympathetic and responsive liaison officers who work together with businesses and constituents to ensure that problems are dealt with quickly, efficiently and compassionately. We must also give additional support to local health services. Quite a large number of my constituents have found this a very difficult time and have needed additional support, particularly with their mental health, and local surgeries have not necessarily had the resources to provide that.
It is very important that local people see that there are local jobs in this, and that people are not just brought in. Obviously we need the right skills, but as far as possible, local businesses and local people must be employed.
On the issue of mitigation, I urge the Minister, who I welcome to her position and congratulate on her appointment, to look at more tunnelling, particularly in the area of the Staffordshire showground, Hopton, Marston and Yarlet. I think it is possible. A green tunnel was proposed for Hopton, but it was removed on spurious grounds, or at least grounds that could have been overcome.
I ask the Minister to ensure that we have full planning well in advance for local, regional and national transport, including additional roads. I suggest a link between the A34 and junction 13, just as we have a link between the A34 and junctions 14 and 15. The very long viaduct at Great Haywood must be of outstanding design and faced with traditional stone or brick. I also suggest that the bridge constructed over the M6 for the railway or at least the supports for it should be put in place when the M6 is widened between junctions 13 and 15, rather than having to close the motorway for two separate civil works.
In conclusion, I would rather the Government paused, rethought and built for the whole country, with much better connectivity than this proposal gives us. If this goes ahead, at least for the time being, I ask that all the mitigations that my colleagues and I have put forward be taken seriously, because to date, they have not been.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I remind Members that, as they can see for themselves, seven hon. Members are still seeking to contribute to the debate, therefore there is a premium on reasonable brevity. If each contributes for no more than 10 minutes, all should have the chance to do so before the winding-up speeches begin.

Jo Platt: You will be glad to hear, Mr Speaker, that I intend to speak only briefly, to raise one particular concern that I believe needs urgent consideration by the Government as the HS2 process continues.
HS2 has the ability to rejuvenate the northern economy, bringing with it the much-needed investment, jobs and social transformation that the north deserves. However, to me, HS2 is not just about connecting businesses and bolstering economies. It represents a crucial mechanism to connect people with the skills, education and employment opportunities that could improve life chances.
As I have been clear since my election to this House, connectivity into HS2 stations must be addressed by the Government, because unless connectivity is adequately addressed, HS2 is at risk of becoming a token flagship project that will fail to produce the important benefits we are promised in the north. Such connectivity means connecting our towns and outer cities seamlessly into our HS2 stations, creating a united and interconnected northern economy.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) so rightly pointed out, the Government need “to stop kicking this…can down the road”. At the Tory party conference, the Transport Secretary announced that £300 million would be allocated to HS2 connectivity in the north. However, inspection of the detail of the announcement showed that this money was already allocated to just six city hotspots across the north, totally neglecting the economies and opportunities of our northern towns.
Furthermore, the new Minister suggested two weeks ago that my constituents could access HS2 from Manchester airport, but Manchester airport is a one hour 30 minute bus trip away. How can the Government ever claim to be committed to our town economies when they believe that that is acceptable and that, despite HS2 cutting through the middle of my constituency, it will take longer for my constituents to connect to HS2 at Manchester airport than to travel onwards to London?
The connectivity plans as they currently stand are completely unacceptable to our region, but it is for the young people in Leigh that I wanted to speak in this debate. They are growing up in the context of an evolving economic landscape that they will not easily be able to participate in. In the words of the former Conservative Education Secretary, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), the
“bottom line is that while talent is spread evenly in our country, opportunity isn’t”.
Until the Government either invest in our northern towns or provide our transport bodies with the funding to do so, these enormous infrastructure projects will benefit only those growing up in our inner cities. The divide between our towns and our cities is growing ever larger under this Government. This will restrict the life chances of an entire generation who are being held back solely because of their postcode. I therefore urge the Government to review their connectivity plans and seek to widen the opportunities that HS2 could provide to our young people.

Cheryl Gillan: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leigh (Jo Platt). I share her pain, because HS2 phase 1 goes right through the middle of my constituency and brings no benefits, just burdens. I think there are many such seats, as we have heard from other hon. Members on other occasions, as well as today. I agree with her about the north. My father was in steel in the north of  England, and we have always known that to assist in increasing the prosperity of the north of England, the cross-Pennine links should have been prioritised a long time ago. It is a pleasure to follow her short but elegant speech.
May I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench? My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) is an extremely capable person, although I have to say that I do not envy her her task. She follows in the footsteps of no less than—let me see—one, two, three, four, five Secretaries of State and one, two, three, four, five, six junior Ministers. Since 2010, it appears that no Minister has managed more than two years in this position in charge of HS2. I would not have wished HS2 on her, but I hope her ministerial career will last a great deal longer than that. I wish, however, that her colleagues would listen and that we could have a Minister dedicated to HS2 on its own, because this project is such a gargantuan one that it really deserves to have ministerial attention focused on it completely. If we look at the project’s history since its inception, with the catalogue of failures and problems it has thrown up, we can see that a Minister dedicated to it is much needed and would be very welcome.
Mr Speaker, I feel like saying, “Here we are again, and yes, I am on my feet.” I think we probably do divide into sheep and goats on the Floor of this House as far as HS2 is concerned. Whether I am a sheep or a goat I do not know. I am probably an old goat, but I am happy to stand up here with some other old goats, like my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and even the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—most of whom happen to be in the Chamber at the moment. I have been really heartened by the support that I have had over the years as I have tried to fight this project, and then tried to have it altered and modified so that it did less harm than was envisaged.

Barry Sheerman: In passing, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on becoming a dame. Is it not a fact that she and I have campaigned against this project for a very long time, on the grounds that it will not deliver, it will never deliver, by 2033, and it will superseded by different forms of transportation by 2033, and also on the grounds that £100 billion of national treasure that could have flowed—I say this as a Labour MP—into the national health service and transport across the north will have been wasted?

Cheryl Gillan: I am loth to agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely, but I find myself tempted to do so, because the first point I want to mention is cost.
The cost of this project will go up exponentially. When it was first announced in 2013, the cost of the whole project was about £16 billion, and by 2015 those costs were updated to £55.7 billion. The National Audit Office published a report on HS2’s progress and preparations, and it highlighted the fact that the £55.7 billion funding package does not even cover the funding for the activity needed to deliver the promised growth and regeneration benefits that the hon. Member for Leigh so desperately wants for her young constituents. I think that still continues to be a problem, and I would ask the Minister to have a look at when she can update the costs of this project, and ask her to lay out clearly for the  House what extra funding will be required from the Treasury to deliver those growth and regeneration benefits that have been so much boasted of.
I think HS2 will turn out to be, as Michael Byng said, the most expensive railway on earth, at £403 million a mile. In fact, Michael Byng, who created the method used by Network Rail to cost its projects, made the estimates for the DFT and said the line would cost double the official figure, and 15 times more than the cost per mile of the TGV in France. We need to be very careful about how those costs are escalating.
I want to mention the environment. I have had some notable gains in Buckinghamshire—our own county—to save the Chilterns from even greater damage than was first anticipated. I am grateful for the tunnelling. It saves some 9.2 hectares of ancient woodland in three separate woods, but the Woodland Trust has estimated that on phase 2a and 2b it is losing 24 irreplaceable woods, and we shall still lose 63 ancient woods on phase 1 to start off with. I say to the House: once they have gone, they are lost forever. You cannot replace ancient woodland, however much planting you do in other areas of the country.
I want to mention the process. I think the hybrid Bill process for phase 1 was a travesty of our procedures, and I pay tribute to the Chairman of Ways and Means and the House authorities who looked at the Standing Orders and changed some of the aspects of a hybrid Bill to improve the petitioner experience. I want to place it on the record that I think our Clerk who is no longer with us, Neil Caulfield, who was so excellent, would have been pleased to see adjustments to these procedures. Although it is still an arcane process, I think it was important that we fed back the agonies of going through the hybrid Bill process, and that the House responded. I think the positive changes that have been made, particularly the changes to the language, which will increase accessibility to the petitioners, will make a difference and protect the rights for petitioners to be heard. I also think that submitting petitions electronically is a way forward. I still think that the fee of £20 to fight for one’s house, business, land or property is insulting, and I see no reason why petitioners must pay £20 to have their case heard when the state is trying to take their property.
I also feel that corridor deals need to be stamped out. Corridor deals conducted by silks and barristers acting on behalf of the Government are completely opaque and have no enforceability. There is intimidation and pressure from the QCs and the legal teams, hustling up to people in the corridor right before their petition is heard. I hope that the Government will listen and ensure that corridor deals are stamped out completely in this next legislative phase.
I want to refer to engagement by HS2 and the attitude towards the people affected. My colleagues have spoken eloquently already about the ways in which HS2 and its staff and personnel still fail to engage with the people who are most affected by this project. I am still hearing of poor engagement up and down the line, and the Country Land and Business Association reports delays, secrecy, broken promises and poor management.
We are still waiting for answers on various matters, such as the incident that took part in the Colne Valley the other day. I asked for the outcome of the investigation, because I thought that was quite a serious incident.  I have still not had any response outlining exactly what happened and why people behaved in such a fashion to people crossing land that would be affected by HS2.
I would also very much like to find out what is happening in my own constituency, in Buckinghamshire. The other day, the Secretary of State promised that I and other MPs would be informed where works were taking place and that has not yet happened. The Secretary of State gave a categorical undertaking at that Dispatch Box, but messages I have had none.
Only today, despite a clear, agreed contract with HS2, a constituent has found that the payment they were due to receive within 21 days is still outstanding three months later. I will give details to the Secretary of State because it came in just today, but that just proves to me that HS2 still cannot keep its commitments or treat the people who are being affected by the project in a rational, decent and respectful manner. It is a gross miscarriage of justice for people to be treated in such a way by the Government and by HS2 Ltd.

Michael Fabricant: Like me, my right hon. Friend has gone through the phase 1 experience—I am, of course, affected by phase 2a as well. Does she not think that HS2 as an organisation is dysfunctional? One official does not speak to another, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing; surely that does not augur well for the construction of a railway line.

Cheryl Gillan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A project of this nature needs to be run in the most professional fashion possible. It needs good governance. It does not need its top executives to be paid 10 times what an MP is paid. It has been criticised up hill and down dale. We have seen it handing out £1.7 million of unauthorised redundancy payments. We have seen the conflicts of interest that have caused major companies to pull out of the bidding process and the contractual process, the failure to carry out due diligence, a turnover of staff, and an attitude towards the people they deal with that can only be described as arrogant.
I still hope that this project can be pulled back into shape. That is why I encourage my colleagues to think about dedicating the Minister’s career over at least the next two years solely to looking after HS2. I thought long and hard, and I have the freedom of the Back Benches, which is a great pleasure, and it is with a heavy heart that once again I have to say that although I know that my hon. Friends will not press their amendment to a vote, if anyone does call a vote on Second Reading, I will again be forced to walk through the Lobby against it.

Preet Kaur Gill: It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). I too welcome the Minister to her post and wish her very well.
In the UK, we are rightly proud of our status as the birthplace of the railways. However, our rail infrastructure —much of it from the Victorian era—requires significant investment if it is to continue to serve the people of Britain in the 21st century. In our 2017 manifesto, Labour promised to create a national transformation  fund to invest some £250 billion over 10 years, and we remain firmly committed to investing in our nation’s infrastructure.
HS2 represents one of the largest infrastructure projects in Europe. The scheme will provide much needed capacity to support future demand for rail services, and it aims to deliver wider economic benefits to the regions that it serves and beyond. Although very few would argue against those goals, it is crucial that the project is conducted in the right way: by providing jobs and opportunities to our young people, minimising the disruption caused to our communities and protecting our precious environment.
Although I support the HS2 project in principle, I think it is important to focus on a number of issues. London’s economic output is more than double the rest of the UK average. For the country as a whole to prosper, the balance needs to be redressed, not to the detriment of Londoners but for the benefit of all. According to Government figures, when HS2 is fully completed, it will deliver a benefit-cost ratio of 2.3 when wider economic impacts are included. I want to make sure that those benefits are shared by as wide a group as possible, and especially the areas that are directly affected by the construction of the line. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent on this project; that money must benefit more than just the shareholders of a handful of large companies.
Both the Birmingham chamber of commerce in my constituency and the Greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership support HS2, recognising the economic benefits that better connectivity will bring. I want Birmingham’s economic output to continue to grow, its people to find well paid, secure and skilled jobs, and the city’s potential to be further recognised as a result of the project. I want to see the construction of HS2 ignite greater interest in engineering among our young people, and apprenticeships to be made available to all young people in our communities, whatever their background.

Rachel Maclean: I completely agree with the hon. Lady about the benefits and how they should be spread across Birmingham and the region. Does she also agree that this is a great opportunity to capture the talents of women, particularly in engineering, in this Year of Engineering?

Preet Kaur Gill: I absolutely agree; we need to see more women coming into engineering.
However, one of my concerns is that the recent fiasco surrounding the east coast main line franchise, combined with the demonstrable success achieved after the last private sector rail bail-out by Directly Operated Railways, serves only to highlight the need for public ownership of our railways. At a time when living standards are squeezed, wage rises are not keeping pace with the cost of living, and rail passengers have just had to endure the largest fare rises in five years, it is not acceptable for private companies to table inflated offers for these vital services, extract the profits, and then simply walk without honouring their commitments.
Finally, this project should not come at the expense of our environment either. In future, when our children are using HS2, I want them to benefit from the cleaner air that the increased use of rail will bring, but I do not want the construction of the tracks that they are travelling  on to have caused untold damage to the environment. Organisations such as the Wildlife Trusts have raised concerns about the loss of ancient woodland, sights of special scientific interest and nature reserves. The construction of HS2 should serve as an example of how large-scale infrastructure projects can be conducted in an environmentally friendly way—changing the environment, yes, but not destroying it. This is an opportunity to achieve a net gain for nature.
The sums of money involved are too great and the potential impact on communities too large to get this project wrong. That is why the Government need to ensure that the process is as transparent, cost-effective and environmentally friendly as possible, so that HS2 delivers for the many, not the few.

Jack Brereton: As an enthusiastic supporter of improvements to our rail network, I welcome the principle behind the Bill—establishing a high-speed railway beyond Birmingham—but I have some concerns, so I welcome this opportunity to set out how I think the Bill could be improved, particularly for the ambitious and growing city of Stoke-on-Trent.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as a recent and welcome visitor to my constituency, will know exactly how ambitious we are. The scale of the local rail improvements we are seeking and planning for are, like HS2 itself, unmatched since the Victorian era. We are keen to embrace the many opportunities arising from HS2. HS2 is going to happen—that is no longer the debate; phase 1 preparations are already under way, and the actual building of phase 1 begins next year. Time is marching on. The section we are debating in the Bill, phase 2a, is due to open to passengers by 2027—the end of the next Parliament. We must get on with the Bill, or it will not be long before we are living with the consequences of getting it wrong.
The principle of a high-speed railway line from the west midlands conurbation to Crewe is sound—releasing capacity for passengers and freight services on the existing network, while cutting the fast times to Crewe from London to under an hour—and in principle I welcome it, but for the social and economic benefits of HS2 to be maximised in practice, there needs to be much better integration, as many hon. Members have mentioned. Improvements to infrastructure on the existing network around Stoke-on-Trent, as well as local rail improvements for connecting trains from Crewe, including the Crewe to Derby line, which serves Longton in my constituency, are vital.
The Secretary of State joined me on that service earlier this month and has seen at first hand the improvements needed on it. I welcome the much-needed investment in our local transport infrastructure that he proposed when he visited, but there is much left to be resolved around how the benefits of HS2 will be delivered in and for Stoke-on-Trent. As the briefing note that the public affairs department of HS2 Ltd kindly sent to MPs for this debate puts it:
“Detailed work and consultation is currently being undertaken on options for the development of the HS2 Crewe Hub, with the potential for a HS2 service at Stoke.”
That is a tantalising, and potentially a very lucrative, assurance for the city.
There is clearly a need for Stoke-on-Trent to be connected—it is fundamental to HS2 being of maximum benefit to my constituency. We are told by HS2 Ltd that the Bill “could” mean better commuter services and the potential for extra freight trains, and we are assured by the Rail Delivery Group that it “will” add much-needed space for more and faster trains. I say that it “must” deliver these benefits. To do that, the Government need to be clear that a viable option for the Stoke connector, as promoted by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, is firmly on the table, to ensure that the infrastructure around Stoke-on-Trent receives the vital upgrades it needs.
This would mean getting, in addition to the proposed Handsacre link, which is appropriate for Stafford, a low-impact five-mile line designed to take classic compatible HS2 trains from the main HS2 line through the very significant Stoke-on-Trent catchment and on to the rest of east Cheshire, Macclesfield and Stockport. Such a dedicated Stoke connector would provide the necessary link to improve connectivity and boost capacity. It would do so by getting around the bottleneck that will otherwise remain on the west coast main line to the south of Stoke-on-Trent. That is the way to maximise the full opportunities for more housing and jobs, and I will continue to pursue this matter as the Bill progresses.
It is also imperative that Stoke-on-Trent continue to enjoy regular fast train services to and from London—at least one service every half hour or more frequently. HS2 compatibility should offer my constituents improved journey times as well as helping us to maximise both housing and commercial development in the city, fully seizing the economic opportunities that Stoke-on-Trent offers.
It is essential to address the lack of fast, direct services between Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham, to match the good quality of the services currently offered between Stoke-on-Trent and Manchester. Through the Bill, HS2 has the potential to address the severe overcrowding and poor connectivity that are currently experienced between Stoke-on-Trent and Birmingham. There is also the potential to improve connectivity further by providing the direct intercity services that are currently lacking between locations such as Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool. That would fully exploit the potential for economic growth from the midlands engine and northern powerhouse initiatives, with Stoke-on-Trent as the gateway to the north.
As well as improving services, it is essential to do more to improve both the capacity and the offer at Stoke-on-Trent railway station. Although it is the main station serving the potteries conurbation, which consists of more than half a million people, it currently has limited platform and concourse capacity, as well as poor-quality retail facilities. Again, Stoke-on-Trent City Council has stepped forward with detailed proposals. The Stoke-on-Trent HS2 master plan sets out the ambition to transform the station, vastly improving capacity and facilities, and leveraging significant redevelopment in the wider area on the back of those improvements. It is important for those proposals to be realised if we are to ensure that the station is HS2-ready and playing a full part in the city’s regeneration.
I fully support the principle of the Bill, and it will receive my support tonight. I am a positive and enthusiastic supporter of improvements in our rail industry, and I am keen for us to finally emerge from the legacy of the  disastrous erosion of Stoke-on-Trent’s rail network that we saw under nationalisation. I know that the Secretary of State is equally committed to large-scale improvements, and I thank him for the commitment to invest in our local transport infrastructure that he gave during his recent visit to my constituency; it was hugely welcome. However, I take very seriously the need to improve infrastructure interconnectivity, and further work needs to be done on that. I also take very seriously the opportunities promised by the Department for Transport and HS2 Ltd, which have said that detailed proposals will continue to be refined for HS2 as the Bill progresses. I look forward to playing my part in that process to the full.

Gareth Snell: It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), in this important debate. I disagree with him about the support that should be offered to the Bill this evening. The principle behind a high-speed rail network is absolutely fine, but the Bill should actually be entitled the devastation of Staffordshire Bill. It will lay an iron scar across our county, and it will bring very little in the way of economic benefits. All that it does is seek to take all the potential benefits and, through a bottleneck, funnel them down to London and the south-east, where there will be no benefit for my constituents or those of the hon. Gentleman.
I find myself in what some might describe as the invidious, or perhaps I should say unusual, position of agreeing with the hon. Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—the holy triumvirate of Staffordshire Members when it comes to matters of logistics—who have drawn attention to the fallacies in the Bill. Like the hon. Member for Stafford, I have no problem in principle with high-speed rail. I have no problem with the idea of providing additional capacity for the west coast main line and an opportunity for new rail networks to come through Staffordshire and service his constituency and mine. What the Bill does not do, however, is match that aspiration with reality.
The hon. Gentleman has already pointed out that the services that will be coming north from London through our constituencies will terminate at Macclesfield. If we were serious about how we could provide better economic benefits for Staffordshire, the line would go all the way to Manchester. Crucially, that would also offer a new opportunity for a direct service from Stoke-on-Trent to Manchester airport. That would provide a huge growth opportunity for business and tourism, and it is supported by Staffordshire chambers of commerce, which has done so much to promote the venture. It would not necessarily involve a high-speed link, but it would involve the wider issue of funding the regeneration of rail networks out of Stoke-on-Trent. We must not focus purely on high-speed rail enabling us to get to and from London quicker than we currently can. The purpose here is interconnectivity of the regions going north as well, and what we are being offered in this Bill does not provide any sort of hope for that.
I want to look at what I consider to be a mismatch in Government policy. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy highlights the potential  benefit of a ceramic deal in Stoke-on-Trent, and the fact that Stafford is a growth point in our county and that we could have new jobs and regeneration and place-based economic growth through a potential ceramic park bordering my constituency and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. Yet although we are told that a place-based industrial strategy is important, we are also told that Stoke-on-Trent station, which has 2.8 million rail users a year, is not worthy of anything other than a single one-hour service that will only go north to Macclesfield and will terminate in London, when the journey time of the current service to London is adequate and capacity on the Virgin line is not too much of a problem.
The bigger capacity issue in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire involves the line run by CrossCountry that services Stafford, Wolverhampton and Birmingham and Birmingham International, where it is often standing-room only in some of the most unpleasant circumstances we can imagine. Yet while we are talking about trying to bring Government policy on regeneration strategy together, there is no economic benefit not to having a greater presence in Stoke-on-Trent.
There is the issue of where the services coming north go to. The hon. Member for Lichfield rightly pointed out that there are potential benefits in using existing railheads, and I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South endorse the work done by Councillors Mohammed Pervez and Andy Platt on the Stoke option, which sought to use the existing rail infrastructure in Staffordshire to take high-speed trains north. The estimate done by the city council at that time suggested that that system could be delivered seven years quicker than the previous timescale and at £5 billion less.
We have here a system that does necessarily deliver economic benefits for the people of Staffordshire, and it certainly does not help address the ecological issues raised by the hon. Members for Stafford, for Stone and for Lichfield, nor does it provide any great comfort that the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine will be properly connected.
The hon. Member for Lichfield stole most of the things I wanted to say, and he made the point that this is meant to be about connectivity but it really is not. Connectivity does not mean having to traipse across London to make a change, and it does not mean having to change stations outside Birmingham—and Birmingham Curzon Street to Birmingham New Street is quite a long walk for those carrying a bag or if there are a lot of people in the town centre that day.
The system does not address the east-west connectivity of Stoke-on-Trent, which is a greater issue. It does not look at the route that goes from north Wales all the way through the Derby. It does not seek to change the single-carriage railway we currently have that is often over-subscribed. It does not seek to deal with the fact that parts of the M6 are still not in the managed motorways system, so we drive north on the M6 and hit junction 13 and all of a sudden we drop down to three lanes and the traffic is a bit gnarly and not particularly flowing well, and then we reach junction 17 and all is fine again. That is part of the connectivity that we need.
The system certainly does not recognise the fact that junction 15 of the M6 is one of the worst junctions to navigate of all time. I have sometimes had to wait longer there to get on to the M6 than it has taken me to  get to Birmingham once on the M6, simply because of the way that junction works. So if we are talking about connectivity and there being a need for greater integration of transport provision, we must look at that as well as looking at high-speed rail.
The Secretary of State is not in his place at present, but the new Minister is and I welcome her to her role. Can we get some clear and categorical commitments that the existing Virgin service that we have from Stoke-on-Trent will not be diminished? Every time we ask that question, we get a slightly different answer; we get some sort of, “Yes, but, maybe, if,” but those terms do not fill us with confidence that any options that come out of the Crewe hub will not lead to a reduction overall in rail service from Stoke-on-Trent. If we include journeys from the constituency of the hon. Member for Stafford, we find that 5 million rail journeys are conducted out of Staffordshire every year. That is a large number of people, and they deserve to know what the future of their rail service will look like.
I would be grateful to the Minister if she gave greater consideration to ensuring that trains going north go past Macclesfield. There is a genuine economic boom to be harnessed in north Staffordshire and south Cheshire if we can have a proper high-speed rail link to Manchester and Manchester airport. That is a proposal that the local chambers of commerce have been putting together. I would welcome any words from her or her colleagues in the Department for Transport about the managed motorways system on the M6. We need to take a holistic approach if we are to make north Staffordshire and south Cheshire a good place to do business, deliver economic regeneration and, most importantly for my constituents, provide the rail service that they need. I support the principle of the Bill, but I cannot support its content, and if there is a Division on it, I am afraid that I will not offer my support to the Government this evening.

Rachel Maclean: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I commit my support for the Bill’s Second Reading. I have listened with interest to the entire debate, and I want to thank all those Members who have talked about the changes that need to be made. As a former resident of Birmingham, and someone who now lives close to it, I endorse what colleagues have said about connectivity across that city. I very much hope that the issues can be addressed in the final plans. We have heard arguments about how long it takes to walk between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham Curzon Street. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is obviously a very speedy walker; other Members walk more slowly. If that route could be joined up, it would be beneficial for everyone who passes through what is one of our nation’s great cities.
I want to touch on the question of productivity, which is a key theme in the debate and links closely with what we are trying to achieve with transport infrastructure in this country. This is the main reason why I am supporting the Bill tonight. The Government brought forward many measures in the industrial strategy to boost productivity across the country. That is really important to all of us who live outside London and the south-east. We all acknowledge that wealth, jobs and  productivity are not spread evenly across our country, and one of the major things that we can do to address that is to build a decent high-speed train service that will enable our constituents, wherever they live, to travel up and down the country to access jobs and opportunities. The Government are making a fantastic commitment to this project, which underpins their mission to spread wealth and growth across the country.

Michelle Donelan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the biggest infrastructure project in Europe?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because she reminds me of the significant amount—about £100 billion, I think—that Governments, including the previous Labour Government, have put forward. We have not built any new railways in this country since Victorian times, so it is really important that we are committing this funding now and in the future to build our railways. The project will be important to our constituents’ quest to travel not only from London to the midlands, but from the midlands up to the north. It will also help our quest to take pressure off the overheated south.

Maggie Throup: My hon. Friend makes a very good argument. Does she agree that this is not just about freeing up the lines to the south, because there will be help for lines to some of the smaller stations where services do not stop at the moment? This is not just about people who want to travel from city to city; it is also about travel between towns.

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend her intervention. I am sure that many of her constituents, like mine, have to travel to the nearest big city or town to get to work or leisure destinations. The project will help to free up capacity on those secondary lines.
The project will make an important contribution to our global competitiveness as a nation. Thanks to the Government’s economic programme and their management of the economy, the UK is seen as a highly attractive destination for business investment. I want to see to that continue. When foreign investors look at our country, they consider the transport links, because they want to invest in places from where it is easy to get around the country so that people will find their businesses attractive and want to work for them.
HS2 will benefit not only my constituents in Redditch, but the country as a whole. Although we will not benefit directly from HS2, we live only a short distance away from Birmingham, which will be a major stop on the line. Many of my constituents work, play and socialise in Birmingham, and the economic prospects of a place such as Redditch are intertwined with those of Birmingham and the larger west midlands conurbation. When the project is completed, we will see benefits for business and residents, and transport routes up and down the country will be opened up.

Michelle Donelan: Does my hon. Friend share my passion for the National College for High Speed Rail? It will not only help to fill the skills gap for high-speed rail, but train people so that we deal with the long-term skills gap in the engineering, design, technology and construction sectors.

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend is a great champion of engineering and I have been inspired by what she has done in her constituency. HS2 will definitely provide a boost for engineering careers. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) rightly said that we do not mention careers for women in engineering enough, and I want to go at least some way towards rectifying that. I hope that the National College for High Speed Rail will have a mission to bring more women into engineering so that this project provides a boost to help to address the dire lack of women in engineering and construction, particularly given that it is the Year of Engineering and also 100 years since women got the vote. There are many reasons to focus on that issue and ensure that we get things right.

Maggie Throup: We need engineers to construct the line, but we need them in the supply chain, too. Bombardier’s base is close to my constituency, and I have met the female apprentice engineers who build the underground trains that we travel on every day. That is just one example of how much more we can do to spread the word that engineering is for men and women.

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We can all encourage employers to be role models and women to speak out. Businesses that value such careers should pay people decent salaries so that they do not all go off to work in the City. That is what this country needs. We need a dynamic economy that works for everyone.

John Hayes: I was until recently the Minister for the Year of Engineering, and I looked at the possibility of establishing an advisory group to examine exactly the issue my hon. Friend describes: how groups that are under-represented in engineering can get a foothold and, beyond that, a greater share of the opportunities. I wonder whether the current Minister will take that up and perhaps establish such a group, which would be in the spirit of what my hon. Friend suggests.

Rachel Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for his work. He is a champion of women not only in engineering, but in all other spheres, and I hope that the Minister will take up that suggestion.
Redditch’s small businesses are hoping to take advantage of some of the contracts that are being awarded through HS2, both now and in the future. For example, Arrowvale Electronics makes world-leading equipment and hopes to benefit from the boost that an HS2 contract would provide. I know how hard it is for small businesses to tender for large-scale Government contracts, so I urge the Minister to say what she is doing to ensure that they can get a slice of the pie and benefit the diverse economy that we all want.

Gareth Snell: The hon. Lady makes the apt and correct argument that there ought to be opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises to get government contracts. What I fail to see is the logic behind her support for both this Bill and that argument, because if there were other projects to deal with regional rail inequalities and road upgrades—other large infrastructure projects that were not HS2—such opportunities would still exist.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I confess that I am not sure that I entirely followed its logic, but I think I get the point he is trying to make. There will be opportunities for small businesses, even if not directly—I am thinking of first contractors and even the supply chain further down, because many of these contracts involve a multitude of contractors. It is important that the Government look at this area, as I am sure that the Minister will. There will be a benefit for people and businesses in my constituency, and we hope there will be a particular benefit for women. Although the HS2 college is located in Birmingham, I hope that it will see what it can do to spread its opportunities for training beyond Birmingham city centre.
I have mentioned the process of contracting already, but I wish to touch on it again briefly. I am a member of the Select Committee on Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and just this morning we held our joint inquiry with the Select Committee on Work and Pensions on the collapse of Carillion. We have questioned the regulators and we will shortly be questioning the Carillion directors. Clearly, there are many lessons to learn from this collapse, which has affected many businesses and people, including those with pensions. I very much hope that when the Government award contracts for HS2, they will learn those lessons quickly so that we do not see the sorts of decisions that enabled companies such as Carillion to continue operating in a way that put pensions and small businesses at risk. I very much hope that the Minister will address those concerns, which I am sure we all have.
If this project is done right, we have an opportunity to do contracting right, and to boost not only small businesses but larger businesses up and down the country, providing opportunities for people to gain new skills. I am talking about apprenticeships, and getting more women in engineering and new sectors such as the rail industry. Such sectors might not have been traditionally attractive for people to consider, so let us make careers in them something to which young people aspire, so that we are going forward with the jobs of the future.

Michelle Donelan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one area that has been neglected in today’s debate is the social and wellbeing aspect that the project can bring to people? We talk often in this place about loneliness and boosting tourism around the country, and improving our connectivity in the UK is an example of how we can achieve that.

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend makes an extremely perceptive point and I completely agree with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) was talking about the investment figures, and sometimes there are intangible benefits that are not always captured in an economic forecast. I hope that the Government are looking at that and looking at how we can maximise what my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) describes. Loneliness is a real scourge and when people who live in London can get on a train and go to Birmingham, or vice-versa, and people can to go from Birmingham to the north, they can explore new parts of our beautiful country. We can also reduce the carbon footprint that would come from their getting on an airplane. Let us have more staycations. Let us explore our country, because we are blessed in our island nation with some of the most beautiful landscapes.  Sometimes that tourism benefit is lacking from our debate. How much better it would be if we could encourage holidays at home and boost the tourism—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am trying to have the debate at least somewhere in scope, and I am sure the hon. Lady wants to get back on track —excuse the pun.

Rachel Maclean: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for deviating a tiny bit off the track.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said in his extremely eloquent speech, it is impossible to build a major infra- structure project in any country without it having some impact on people, but we have to make sure that it is managed sensitively, that people are treated well and that their voices and concerns are heard. I hope that the Government reassure us that that will be done properly.
Infrastructure underpins our productivity. There is a strong push in our country towards devolution, and investment in high-speed rail is critical to that. Will the Minister say how this project will link to the devolved combined authorities agenda? I am close to the West Midlands combined authority—Redditch is a constituent member—where the mayor holds powers over transport. It is important that HS2 links to transport in the mayors’ regions so that we have an integrated solution to local transport issues. I have campaigned vigorously for better links between Birmingham and my town of Redditch, and I shall continue to do so. I hope that we see a push on that as capacity is freed up when the express trains leave the lines, thereby freeing up more scope for faster and better express services from secondary hubs into the main cities.
We in the west midlands are leading on jobs and growth. We have a booming economy. We are creating more jobs and more businesses are starting in our area than in any other part of the country. Redditch is on the edge of that, but we benefit from it and we want to harness it. We want our region to take control of our own destiny, as do, I am sure, colleagues from across the country. This high-speed rail project and other infrastructure projects will enable us to take charge of our own destiny and live our own lives and will encourage prosperity for all our constituents.

Andrew Jones: I rise to speak in support of the Bill. It is positive that we are debating it and I very much enjoyed playing a role in its development.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said, passenger numbers on our railways have grown from just over 700 million to nearly 1.6 billion. That is a fantastic turnaround for an industry that had seen decades of decline. The industry now faces the challenge of how to cater for the growth it is experiencing. It is a completely different mindset, so it is positive that we are seeking finally to bite the bullet and construct some new capacity in the UK rail network. We have deferred this decision for far too long. Things such as small upgrades to reduce pinch points and thereby increase capacity have only deferred the big decisions. If we consider the fact that we have  not built a new railway line in England north of London since the reign of Queen Victoria, we realise just how overdue HS2 is.

Ben Bradley: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the reason why we now face a capacity issue and need to deliver HS2 is that the frailties of the nationalised rail service caused the shutdown of so much of the capacity throughout the country?

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend makes an insightful point. We had decades of decline when the rail industry was in public hands. The turnaround post-privatisation has been dramatic. Opposition Members take that for granted and suggest that nationalisation is a way forward, but they have forgotten the complete change we saw, with the focus on customers and growth, and how that has delivered and been a key part of the UK’s economic growth.

Chris Matheson: Will the hon. Gentleman not concede that that turnaround has taken place on the back of several hundred million pounds of public money being given to the train operators every year?

Andrew Jones: Well, the hon. Gentleman suggests that even more public money should go in, so I am not sure where his argument takes him, apart from round in a circle. We are seeing long-overdue public investment in the rail industry.

Patrick McLoughlin: We do not want to spend too much time on this issue, but the simple fact is that in the past, when the nationalised railway had to rely solely on the Government, the Government cut off its funding. With privatisation, it has attracted funding. The truth of the matter is that that has seen growth in the rail industry that has made something like HS2 absolutely necessary.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend is as wise as ever. Not only do we have public money going into our railways, but we are seeing private investment attracted into our railways and therefore more investment in aggregate. We have this urgent need for capacity within our network to cater for the growth both in passengers and in freight.
After years of decline, this decision has been taken to go for growth. The next question that successive Governments have faced is what form that should take. Should it be investment in the classic rail network, or should we be embracing new technology? Well, we should of course be embracing new technology. Perhaps it is again worth remembering that that has not always been the case under nationalised industries. The UK built its last steam engine in 1960, and it was only in 1964 that the Japanese introduced the bullet train. The Government are buying investment not in phone boxes, but in fibre broadband. Technology should of course be at the heart of our investment decisions.

Gareth Snell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous. I do not disagree with his arguments about the need for infrastructure investment or the need for additional capacity, but this Bill in particular is about the route between the west midlands and Crewe. The route that has been chosen is the most  expensive that it could be, delivering the least economic benefits for Staffordshire and causing the most ecological damage. That is what we should be discussing this evening.

Andrew Jones: That has been part of the discussion throughout the day. I have to say that I missed some of the speeches. I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I simply do not agree with his basic premise. I have travelled the route, met local communities along the route and met local government leaders and local businesses along the route. I simply do not agree with his premise.
The issues raised by colleagues along the line of the route are of course entirely fair and legitimate, and they are right to speak up for their constituents. It is difficult delivering infrastructure—whether it is transport, digital or housing infrastructure—without causing some environmental impact. It is clearly right for the Minister to listen to the concerns raised by Members and to respond appropriately. I know that when I was part of the Transport team, we did nothing but listen and try to address those issues. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), will be in the same grain.
Despite all the sensitivities that have been raised, it is very encouraging that we have a Government who are seeking to deliver HS2 as fast as possible and have brought forward HS2 phase 2a. Views have been well articulated today. The reasons why I am so supportive of the development are that it will deliver key strategic benefits for the UK in terms of economic growth and the skills legacy. I have visited the two HS2 colleges in Doncaster and in Birmingham—only during their construction phase; not since they have progressed further —and I was incredibly impressed by what I saw. They offer great facilities for skills development for people taking apprenticeships. They will learn all the skills that we will need not just for this project, but for future high-speed rail projects.

Rachel Maclean: I hope the House will forgive me for raising this issue again, but because he has visited the college and I have not done so, will he tell me what progress he saw on the initiative for getting more women into the train and engineering industry while he was there?

Andrew Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. It was reasonably hard to see that from the project in development, but the teams I met working in the colleges were absolutely clear that they will be drawing on as much talent as possible, which will obviously mean bringing more women into engineering. We have a huge shortfall in the number of engineers in the UK. Historically, we have failed to draw on as wide a talent base as possible. The more we talk about the matter in this place, the more we follow it through within communities, and the more we offer a series of careers that can deliver high-quality jobs that solve community problems, the more women we will attract into the industry.

John Hayes: Cutting-edge strategic decisions always bring with them a certain degree of contention, which is why Governments in democratic polities too rarely make  such decisions. They also bring with them opportunity. One thinks of Crossrail. At the beginning, there were doubters, but Crossrail has, without doubt, led to the development of skills of the kind he described, the creation of opportunities, and the seeding of jobs, which have led to us being world beating. The same thing can happen in respect of HS2.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I entirely agree with him. For those who have not yet had the opportunity to go to see Crossrail, the opportunity may well occur again as Crossrail has been taking people down to have a look at its sites. What Crossrail has achieved is fantastic. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch will shortly be able to visit one of the HS2 colleges, where she will see just the difference that the project has made.

Cheryl Gillan: I would just say in response to the previous intervention that there would have been far fewer problems had the tunnel gone the entire way under the Chilterns. It would have been advisable to do that. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a real danger that we will not have the engineering capacity to complete these projects on budget and on time, and that, as we currently lack so many skills in engineering, it will be hard to make up that deficit?

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend makes two points. We have previously discussed the issue of tunnelling in the Chilterns. I feel more optimistic about the project as a whole. I do not feel that the current skills gap will hinder the delivery of the project, and I am clear that that will not happen because of the actions taken to bring more people into the sector. The fact that we have to deliver skills via building colleges suggests that the Government have been taking seriously the issue of skills in the railways.
The key reason that phase 2a is such a positive project is that more people will benefit from HS2. Crewe is a rail hub. More passengers will be able to access the benefits that the HS2 network will deliver. I want us to go forward to further develop high-speed rail in other parts of the UK. I am particularly thinking about Northern Powerhouse Rail across the Pennines. I look forward very much to seeing the progress of the Bill and the rail line that will come from it, and how the Government will work with local communities and local government to maximise the opportunities that this line presents.
The HS2 argument has changed from whether we should have it, to how we can maximise the opportunities when it arrives. Those opportunities will be commercial, environmental and in skills. I see huge opportunity throughout the project, which is why I will support the Bill should we divide on it this evening.

Rachael Maskell: I have listened carefully to today’s debate and thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I have heard the concerns and opportunities that the second phase of HS2 will bring. The high-speed rail journey began under the last Labour Government, who recognised the need for greater capacity and better connectivity.
The Victorian rail network has served us well, but nearly 200 years on it is overstretched. If we are to see a significant modal shift in the future—as Labour encourages—and if we want to see rail as the vehicle of choice for distance travel, we cannot stand back and do nothing, nor should we. It was from the Victorian age that our nation witnessed the foresight of a new generation of engineers to radically advance our country and the world. Yet today our trains are slow, crowded, and depend on outdated technology and infrastructure. It is therefore vital that, as a nation, we put ourselves in the driving seat again, strive to be world leaders and propagate the next generation of engineers, with both women and men taking on new careers in the sector.

Bill Cash: Does the hon. Lady agree that it was not only the engineers of the Victorian age—great as they were—but also the capital that was provided which ensured that these schemes were actually put into effect?

Rachael Maskell: We could spend a long time talking about the shenanigans that also took place in this House over the creation of the Victorian railways.
Future capacity is vital. Although longer trains, digital signalling and infrastructure upgrades connecting with new rolling stock may get us through the current period, we will need more lines if we are to look further ahead. If we are to develop more lines, it is right that we seriously consider where they go.
HS2 gives us a real opportunity to think about the future of our country and how we connect it to address the unacceptable levels of inequality across Britain. HS2 is not just about the route itself but about freeing up capacity on the west coast main line and on our roads. This will bring benefit to current road and rail users, as well as creating new opportunities for further development of passenger and, importantly, freight paths on the west coast, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) highlighted and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) asked for.
Of course, Labour would, as always, be looking at the bigger picture, embedding HS2 at the heart of a wider rail and transport strategy. It would be absolutely nonsensical to make such significant investment in a new rail line if we were not properly upgrading the north-west to north-east routes—the HS3 routes. The Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment, but I hope that he will take heed of this. It is not too late to reverse his decision to de-electrify the plans and put power back into the northern powerhouse. The cities in the north demand it. We believe that HS2, integrated with a new, dynamic rail plan, must bring economic investment to the midlands and the north, creating good jobs for a secure future, not least with the new skills required in designing and constructing HS2 through the 30,000 jobs it will create.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) eloquently set out a strong economic case for proper connectivity through a regional rail hub at Crewe, this being at the centre of a network to feed Cheshire and the wider counties, and north Wales. That is vital for the future economy of Crewe. I can think of no better politician than my hon. Friend to speak up for her town and to make that case.
We must remember that HS2 is not an entirety in itself but a bridge to enable economic growth and industrial investment. My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) made a similar point, again focusing on how to build the economies of the north-west by ensuring connectivity. It is vital that HS2 talks to the region, and we must dissect this in Committee to ensure that it does. I note his calling for the line to north Wales through Chester. We should not dismiss this opportunity for some of the communities in the UK who most need this infrastructure stimulus. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Jo Platt) also stressed the need to focus on connectivity. A clear call for integration has been made—one that Labour will support.
Phase 2a is set to deliver nearly £4 billion of benefits over the 60-year appraisal period, with a cost-benefit ratio of 1:9 and wider economic impacts. This indicates upper-end medium value for money, but accelerating this phase will represent very high value for money. Around Crewe, we will see 40,000 new jobs and 7,000 homes, opening up the life chances that have not been seen in the area before and starting to address the complete economic imbalance that we have in our country. Extending this to the Constellation Partnership will deliver 100,000 new homes and 120,000 jobs—20,000 in the Cheshire science corridor alone, putting the UK on the international stage in terms of science and technology.
I assure the House that Labour will never stand in the way of providing such opportunities to communities that have been crying out for investment—a point powerfully made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill).

Jonathan Edwards: I take the point that the hon. Lady is making. However, the KPMG report that looked into the impact of HS2 on various economies across the British state indicated that the south Wales would be absolutely hammered. Is the Labour party not at all concerned about the economy of south Wales?

Rachael Maskell: Of course we are deeply concerned about the economy of south Wales. That is why we electrified the line to south Wales that helped to boost the economy in that region, and also ensured that HS2 fed into north Wales, helping the whole of the Welsh economy to grow.
We have some concerns, and it is absolutely right that there is tight scrutiny of every part of the project, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) highlighted. At a time when the economy continues to fail, not least in the north, Labour understands why people are questioning the economic benefit of spending £55.7 billion on a rail route. This 36-mile section will cost £3.5 billion. At a time when our public services are crying out for investment, it is right that critical questions are asked about the project. However, the benefits are also clear, and it cannot be an either/or. This is about getting the Government’s economic strategy right. We will make sure that every decision brings maximum inward investment, as the economic opportunity is already estimated to be £92 billion across HS2.
We hear the concerns about the environment. It is vital that real consideration is given in Committee to the impact of construction and of the final network on  the environment. That cannot just be about mitigation elsewhere, and I will push for us to maximise this opportunity. I will also want to ensure in Committee that modern, advanced engineering is able to find answers to the many questions raised about the environment and how the habitats directive, no matter which side of Brexit we are on, is seen in its fullest sense.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who spoke particularly well on behalf of his constituents, highlighted how important it is to ensure that his constituents’ concerns are picked up. I assure him that in Committee, we will listen carefully to the points he has to make. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) spoke of her vast experience in dealing with HS2. It is really important that lessons are learned and that there is good communication, and we must certainly end corridor deals.

Bill Cash: The hon. Lady just said that in Committee, we will do such and such. I think she may have misunderstood the nature of the procedure. It will be a hybrid Bill Select Committee, not a Committee of the House.

Rachael Maskell: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do understand the process. Petitions will be brought forward, and we will listen carefully to them.
Labour will want to ensure that all opportunities for cyclists and walkers are harnessed from the HS2 route. Not much has been said about that to date. Labour is committed to cleaning up our air and our environment by cleaning up on the actions of Government when it comes to transport. Labour believes that investment in public and, I must add, publicly owned transport—we are not going back to the past, but moving forward to the future—is the way forward to deliver a rail system fit for the 21st century.

Nusrat Ghani: It is with great pleasure that I close the Second Reading debate. This is my first Bill, so there is no pressure; I will try to do it some justice.
HS2 presents a huge opportunity for the country as a whole. It is a major undertaking but an essential one. Throughout history, improving connectivity has led to innovation, economic advancement and increased productivity. HS2 is no different. This project is a significant long-term capital investment in the country’s infrastructure. It will deliver substantial economic growth and returns, creating the wealth we need to spend on all our priorities, whether those are health or education programmes.
We are ambitious for our country. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke about productivity, being ambitious and ensuring that we train engineers for the future. We are ambitious for all of our country and determined to leave no one behind. HS2 is what the Government are all about, as it will enable future generations to thrive.
HS2 is a significant investment, but it is also a necessary one, and it is important that we get it right. With that in mind, I would like to thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. There were 21 contributions in all, and I will do my best to respond to all of them.
HS2 has the potential to transform our rail network. As a brand-new line, it is the best option for creating more space on our busy railways. By freeing up space on the west coast main line between the west midlands and Crewe, phase 2a has the potential to deliver much-needed additional capacity on a constrained part of our network—reducing overcrowding and making journeys more reliable, creating the opportunity for more varied and frequent services across the region, and benefiting Nuneaton, Tamworth, Lichfield and Rugeley.
The benefits will spread well beyond the railway itself. Faster and easier travel will put more opportunities within reach of millions of people. HS2 will connect people to jobs, and businesses to suppliers. It will bring new investment, employment and regeneration to towns and cities up and down the country. HS2 has the potential to support hundreds of thousands of jobs, including 2,000 apprentices. Most importantly—this was mentioned by many Members—70% of jobs created by HS2 will be outside London. It will help to train a new generation of skilled workers, including through the National College for High Speed Rail.
Many Members—such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill)—spoke about investment in the north. The north of England, in particular, stands to benefit from HS2. This part of the route, between the Birmingham and Crewe, has been brought forward by six years so that we can deliver more of the benefits of HS2 more quickly.
We want to transform journeys for passengers and create the capacity the north needs to flourish, and delivering HS2 is an essential part of that. We are already carrying out the biggest investment in the north of England for a generation, spending £13 billion on northern transport, which is the largest such amount in Government history. This is not about the north against the south. Investing in our rail network is a key part of the Government’s plan for a connected Britain, and we are committed to improving journeys for passengers throughout the country.
HS2 will bring benefits to cities across the north before the construction of phase 2. Phase 1 will reduce journey times towards, for example, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, and will release capacity between Birmingham and London. By shifting long-distance services on to the brand-new railway, HS2 will release capacity on existing routes and provide options for new or additional local, cross-country, commuter and freight services in many areas.
Phase 2a, between the west midlands and Crewe, will further improve journey times and bring more benefits to the north. HS2 is a key component in the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail, our vision for significantly improving journey times and service frequency between major cities in the north of England. This is why we have announced £300 million of funding to future-proof HS2 to accommodate future junctions. With Transport for the North and Midlands Connect, we are developing a clear set of proposals for connections that would allow Northern Powerhouse Rail and Midland Connect services to use HS2.
Several Members have spoken about Crewe and Stoke, and I hope to be able to respond to some of their questions. The HS2 business case has always included a  plan to run high-speed train services to Crewe, but I know there is a strong ambition to achieve even more. I visited Crewe just last week, and I was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of Cheshire East Council and the Constellation Partnership to make the most of the opportunities that HS2 will bring, including jobs and homes.
I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) that a Crewe hub would generate significant opportunities not only for Crewe itself, but for the surrounding region. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) spoke very clearly in support of Stoke being served by HS2. As the Secretary of State set out in his opening speech, we are very clear about the important economic role that Stoke-on-Trent plays in the wider region, and we want it to be served by HS2.

Gareth Snell: Under the current plans, Stoke will be served by just one HS2 train an hour. Will the Minister consider upping that to two an hour to generate the economic benefit she has just committed herself to?

Nusrat Ghani: We are a long way from the timetables, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me continue for a moment, I will talk about how and when we will respond to the consultation undertaken on this very section.
We are looking at what would be needed for phase 2a to support a future Crewe hub, but as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich is aware, Crewe is a strategically important location on the rail network and the existing infrastructure is very complex. In our plans for HS2, we must ensure that we get things right. That is why last year we launched a consultation to look at whether we can provide an even better service to Crewe—one that could serve more destinations and allow more trains to stop. We are considering the responses, and will respond shortly. Realising the full vision would need the local council to work with us on funding, and my Department is working closely with Cheshire East on this. Some elements could be taken forward by Network Rail, under its existing permitted development rights, and we understand the whole-hub vision would require a junction north of Crewe back on to HS2, but that has to be a decision for phase 2b, as we will not build the relevant part of the HS2 line north of Crewe in phase 2a.

Laura Smith: I am wondering whether we can get some clarity as to when we will get the answer to this consultation —not a “You will get it in due course” answer. We would quite like to know when that will be.

Nusrat Ghani: We are working through the details. We will try and do it as quickly as we can, but it will be shortly—this year. I am sorry; I cannot provide more details now, but I will write to the hon. Member and let her know. This is very complicated and cannot be rushed. We need to make the decisions for the right reasons.

Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the passion with which the Minister is approaching her brief, but may I bring her back down to reality? The constituent I mentioned in my speech, who has been so badly affected by HS2 phase 1 and so badly let down by HS2 Ltd, which is not paying the bills it promised, and is contracted, to pay, is now on antidepressants and fears that this sort of thing  is happening to many other people up and down the line. Could the Minister put some of her passion for the project into protecting the people who are so badly affected by the project?

Nusrat Ghani: My right hon. Friend has raised many issues about HS2 Ltd, its relationship with our constituents and its poor performance in communication previously, with the Secretary of State and with Ministers who have held my current position. I will indeed endeavour to hold HS2 Ltd to account. I am more than happy to take on board any cases that my right hon. Friend wishes to present to me, and I am grateful for her words in opening her speech. I will do my best to outlive previous Ministers in this position.
To turn to the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), the consultation on the Crewe hub that we published last year included service pattern options that will reap benefits for Chester, north and south Wales, Shrewsbury and the wider region. As I mentioned, we expect to respond to that consultation shortly.

Bill Cash: I think I can say this on behalf of all those who are liable to petition in Staffordshire, thus representing several constituencies here: will the Minister do everything possible to help those petitioners to present their case, and show maximum understanding of what is affecting them, right the way through from one end of Staffordshire to the other?

Nusrat Ghani: My hon. Friend has been a great champion for his constituents and has made his concerns known to me, the Secretary of State and previous Ministers. The Committee is the best place for him to represent his constituents and encourage them to petition the Committee.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) raised an incident in Colne Valley. I expect HS2 Ltd and any contractors to treat everyone with respect. The reported behaviour that she mentioned is completely unacceptable and falls well below the standard that I would expect. I am happy to take up the case on her behalf.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) gave a very passionate speech, which I believe is now trending on YouTube, with his walk back and forth in the Chamber. I am not quite convinced about his journey times within Birmingham, and as a proud Brummie I would not mind spending eight or 22 minutes walking around Birmingham as I think it is a great place to be, but HS2 is connected to existing rail stations up and down the network, including Euston, Manchester, Crewe, Leeds and Sheffield.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) raised a number of concerns. I know that she has spoken repeatedly to me, my predecessor and the Secretary of State, and that too she is a strong champion for her constituents. On Long Eaton, HS2 Ltd has had meetings with my hon. Friend, valuation agents and residents to try to progress this issue. HS2 Ltd is mindful that there are elderly and vulnerable residents involved, and these cases are getting very senior attention within HS2 Ltd to try to find a resolution. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend will continue to work with me to ensure that her constituents are satisfied with the responses that they get from HS2 Ltd.
Let me turn to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and others about ancient woodland. Of course, ancient woodland is irreplaceable, and although we cannot fully compensate for all impacts, we have committed to use best practice measures, such as enhancing links between woodland, reusing ancient woodland soils and creating new mixed deciduous woodland. More than 75 hectares of new woodland will be planted along the phase 2a scheme to partially compensate for the loss of 10.5 hectares of ancient woodland. It is unfortunate, but we are doing our very best to compensate for the woodland that is being taken.
I am unable to respond to many other Members’ comments, and I will endeavour to write to them all, but I want quickly to move on to the question of engagement. Many Members mentioned that HS2 Ltd has fallen short of expectations as to how it should communicate with Members as well as their constituents. I expect HS2 Ltd to reach extremely high standards in all its engagement activities, and I say to the House that I am sorry if in any of these cases the level of engagement has fallen short. I encourage any Members with particular concerns to meet me to discuss them. I will listen, and I will endeavour to hold HS2 Ltd to account. As a project, we will continue to learn and improve.
There have been a number of conversations about the cost of the project. To clarify, the 2015 spending review reconfirmed the Government’s commitment to HS2 and set a long-term funding envelope of £55.7 billion. The Government are determined, and are on course, to deliver HS2 within this. HS2 is a major investment but a necessary one. For every £1 of investment, it will deliver more than £2 of benefits. That is more than £92 billion of benefits to this country before we even talk about the 100,000 jobs, 70% of which are outside London.
I fear that I have run out of time, so I must come to a close. We have made the case for HS2 and we now need to get on and build it. This country invented the railways, and we should be proud of our Victorian pioneers, but we cannot continue to rely on the network that they built. Around the world, our global competitors are already investing heavily in high-speed rail. We are now catching up, and I do not want us to be part of a generation that sits back while others move forward. I was touched by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) said: when trains were first offered from Birmingham to London, people said that canals were adequate. Let us not be that generation.
Let us make no mistake: this country can deliver major infrastructure projects, and we should have confidence that we can deliver HS2. We have already delivered the 2012 Olympics and Crossrail—two examples of what we can achieve when we are ambitious, believe in our ability as a nation to get big infrastructure projects done, and commit to investing in our country and in our future. This Government have a vision for a stronger, fairer country within an economy that works for everyone. Infrastructure is at the heart of our industrial strategy and that for the north—for a modern country with a modern transport infrastructure to match. HS2 will play a vital role in this. I therefore commend this Bill, my first Bill, to the House.

Michael Fabricant: As I intend to vote against Second Reading, for all the reasons I have given, and as that has the same effect, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 295, Noes 12.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read a Second time.

HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL (MONEY)

Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Orders Nos. 15 and 41A),
That at this day’s sitting the Motion in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to Business of the House may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Ordered,
That in respect of the Motions in the name of Secretary Chris Grayling relating to
(1) the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill; and
(2) Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings not later than one and a half hours after the  commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order (notwithstanding, in respect of item (2) above, the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 16); such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL (COMMITTAL)

Ordered,
1. That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of five members, all of whom are to be nominated by the Selection Committee.
2. That in determining the composition of the Select Committee the Selection Committee shall nominate three members from the Government and two from the Opposition.
3. That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—
(a) any petition against the Bill submitted to the Private Bill Office between 30 January 2018 and 26 February 2018, and
(b) any petition which has been submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Select Committee,
(and references in this sub-paragraph to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person).
4. That, notwithstanding the practice of the House that appearances on petitions against an opposed private bill be required to be entered at the first meeting of the Select Committee on the bill, in the case of any such petitions as are mentioned in paragraph 3(a) above on which appearances are not entered at that meeting, the Select Committee shall appoint a later day or days on which it will require appearances on those petitions to be entered.
5. That any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition.
6. That in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body.
7. That the Select Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from day to day the minutes of evidence taken before it.
8. That the Select Committee have power to make special reports from time to time.
9. That three be the quorum of the Select Committee.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL (INSTRUCTION)

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee to which the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill is committed to deal with the Bill as follows:
1. The Committee shall treat the principle of the Bill, as determined by the House on the Bill’s Second Reading, as comprising—
(a) the provision of a high speed railway between a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2 near Fradley Wood, in Staffordshire, and a junction with the West Coast Mainline near Crewe in Cheshire,
(b) in relation to the railway set out on the plans deposited in July 2017 in connection with the Bill in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, its broad route alignment, and
(c) the fact that there are to be no new stations on, or additional spurs from, the railway mentioned in sub-paragraph (b);
and those matters shall accordingly not be at issue during proceedings of the Committee.
2.- (1) The Committee shall have power to consider any amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill which, if the Bill were a private bill, could not be made except upon petition for additional provision.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies only so far as the amendments proposed by the member in charge of the Bill fall within the principle of the Bill as provided for by paragraph 1 above.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL (CARRY-OVER)

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to proceedings on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill:
Suspension at end of current Session
1. Further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended from the day on which this Session of Parliament ends (“the current Session”) until the next Session of Parliament (“the next Session”).
2. If a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in the current Session—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the current Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in the next Session; and
(c) the Bill shall be dealt with in accordance with—
(i) paragraph 3, if proceedings in Select Committee were not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(ii) paragraph 4, if proceedings in Public Bill Committee were begun but not completed when proceedings on the Bill were suspended,
(iii) paragraph 5, if the Bill was waiting to be considered when proceedings on it were suspended,
(iv) paragraph 6, if the Bill was waiting for proceedings in legislative grand committee when proceedings on it were suspended,
(v) paragraph 7, if the Bill was waiting for third reading when proceedings on it were suspended, or
(vi) paragraph 8, if the Bill has been read the third time and sent to the House of Lords.
3. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of such Members as were members of the Committee when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session;
(b) any instruction of the House to the Committee in the current Session shall be an instruction to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
(c) all petitions submitted in the current Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn, and any petition submitted between the day on which the current Session ends and the day on which proceedings on the Bill are resumed in the next Session in accordance with this Order, shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(d) any minutes of evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in the current Session shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;
(e) only those petitions mentioned in sub-paragraph (c), and any petition which may be submitted to the Private Bill Office and in which the petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;
(f) any petitioners whose petitions stand referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the rules and orders of the House, be entitled to be heard upon their petition by themselves, their counsel, representatives or parliamentary agents provided that the petition is prepared and signed in conformity with the rules and orders of the House; and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard through counsel or agents in favour of the Bill against any such petition;
(g) in applying the rules of the House in relation to parliamentary agents, any reference to a petitioner in person shall be treated as including a reference to a duly authorised member or officer of an organisation, group or body;
(h) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day minutes of evidence taken before it;
(i) the Committee shall have power to make special reports from time to time;
(j) three shall be the quorum of the Committee;
(k) any person registered in the current Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in the current Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session.
4. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and to have been re-committed to a Public Bill Committee.
5. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for consideration.
6. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee and to have been considered, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for further consideration.
7. If this paragraph applies—
(a) the Bill shall be deemed to have been reported from the Select Committee and from the Public Bill Committee, to have been considered and to have completed any proceedings in legislative grand committee, and
(b) the Bill shall be set down as an order of the day for third reading.
8. If this paragraph applies, the Bill shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House.
Other
9. In paragraph 1 above the reference to further proceedings does not include proceedings under Standing Order 224A(8) (deposit of supplementary environmental information).
10. In paragraph 3 above references to the submission of a petition are to its submission electronically, by post or in person.
That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

HIGH SPEED RAIL (WEST MIDLANDS - CREWE) BILL: SELECT COMMITTEE (ADDITIONAL SALARIES)

Ordered,
That the Order of the House of 19 March 2013 (Positions for which additional salaries are payable for the purposes of section 4A(2) of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009) be amended, in paragraph (1)(a), by inserting, in the appropriate place, “the Select Committee on the High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill”.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Colombia) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 14 September 2017, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Lesotho) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 14 September 2017, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 31 January (Standing Order No. 41A).

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, we will take motions 11 to 14 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Rating and Valuation

That the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 20 December 2017, be approved.

Betting, Gambling and Lotteries

That the draft Gambling Act 2005 (Amendment of Schedule 6) Order, which was laid before this House on 14 December 2017, be approved.

Community Infrastructure Levy

That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2018, which were laid before this House on 13 December 2017, be approved.

Immigration

That the draft Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 7 December 2017, be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - UNIVERSAL CREDIT PROGRAMME

Helen Goodman: The roll-out of universal credit continues to be a matter of concern in my constituency. Some of my constituents have been temporarily unable to pay their bills because of the long  waiting period between one benefit and another, and the bailiffs were sent around. There is clear evidence of discrimination against women in the way in which the system works. People who have made national insurance contributions and lose their jobs do not get unemployment benefit as they used to on the basis of six months’ contributions if their husbands are in work. I am very grateful to Samantha Townsend, who has collected some 1,100 signatures.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Spennymoor and Teesdale,
Declares that the Universal Credit programme is pushing people into poverty, debt and homelessness.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Work and Pensions to pause and fix Universal Credit before its rollout in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Spennymoor and Teesdale.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002096]

LORRY PARKING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Helen Whately: A few weeks ago, in the early hours of the morning, a car carrying four men crashed into a parked lorry on the edge of the A2 just south of Faversham. Three of the men were killed; the other was seriously injured. We might never know exactly what happened, and I am absolutely not blaming the lorry driver, but that stretch of the A2 is a well-known spot for what we call lorry fly-parking. Fly-parking is when lorries park in lay-bys or on slip roads, hard shoulders, pavements or verges, often at the edge of busy roads such as the A2, the A20 and the A249 in my constituency. Sometimes they also park up quiet country lanes or in industrial estates and housing estates. In general, these are places where lorries should not be parked for more than the few minutes that might be needed for a delivery or an unexpected stop. Sometimes they park legally, and sometimes illegally. Sometimes they park perfectly safely, albeit inconveniently, but at other times, unfortunately, they park dangerously.
This was not the first fatality in my constituency involving a parked lorry. A 74-year-old woman died after crashing into a lorry parked on the hard shoulder at junction 7 of the M20 a couple of years ago. Whatever the cause of the latest crash, this horrific accident should focus our minds on the problem, focus our attention on the need for more lorry parking spaces, and focus our energies on ending lorry fly-parking. Lorry fly-parking is dangerous. There is a danger to other motorists from lorries lined up, bumper to bumper, in lay-bys, sometimes jutting precariously out into the road. There is a danger to the police officers who risk their lives walking along the hard shoulder at night with hundreds of cars speeding by as they move alongside illegally parked trucks. There is also a danger to the lorry drivers themselves when they are in charge of a heavy goods vehicle but have not had a proper rest. A busy roadside with traffic thundering past is hardly a good place to get a proper night’s sleep.
The haulage industry is, rightly, tightly regulated. Drivers must record their hours on a tachograph and take breaks every four and a half hours. When the time comes to stop, they have to stop, but the roadside is not only a bad place to sleep, but a pretty bad place to stop off in general for a driver, as it has no security, no facilities, no showers and not even toilets. That is hardly helpful for an industry that would like to attract more women. From the point of view of most of my constituents —those who are not lorry drivers—they see extra litter and pretty disgusting other stuff on the roadside, and anyone who needs to pull into a lay-by on a main road can forget it, because they are already full.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. Northern Ireland is heavily reliant on cargo being freighted by ship and then by lorry, so this issue concerns us greatly. We must ensure that there are safe and secure areas for lorry drivers to park, not only to enable them to stay within their hours under EU legislation, but to keep them and those who come into contact with them safe. Does she  agree that we should look into providing parking facilities so that those living in residential areas do not have to listen to idling lorries and so that those who drive the lorries can be safe?

Helen Whately: I completely agree that this is about making things better for residents and ensuring that lorry drivers have the facilities that they need. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for bringing a Northern Ireland perspective to the debate.
Lorry parking is not a new problem, but it is growing worse and it is time to fix it. So what is the answer? Everyone we speak to, including the Road Haulage Association, the Freight Transport Association, Highways England, local councillors and our constituents, will give the same common-sense answer: we must build more lorry parks. That seems deceptively simple. We know that there is demand for more truck stops. For instance, Kent County Council’s surveys show that we have around 900 lorries a night parking inappropriately. Lorry parks in Kent are turning lorries away. Ashford lorry park turned away 252 trucks in a single night last year, so the demand is clearly there. Kent County Council has been taking action by identifying possible locations for new truck stops and talking to lorry park operators to gauge their interest. Indeed, the Ashford lorry park just yesterday submitted a planning application to expand from 390 to 600 places. Those extra places will be helpful, but the number still falls far short of the 900 extra places needed in Kent. As freight volumes continue to grow with the growing economy, one can predict that that shortfall will only increase.
However, that prompts a question: given that commercial operators run service stations and lorry parks in the UK, why have more truck stops not stepped up to serve the demand? What can we do to ensure that the shortfall in parking places is met, and quickly? What conversations has the Minister had with lorry park operators about what is stopping them expanding? What investigations has he made to determine how we can encourage planning applications for truck stops that can make their way successfully and speedily through the planning system? I recognise that fast-forwarding planning for lorry parks is difficult, given the experience in Kent with the Operation Stack holding area, but when we get that vital lorry holding area, will the Government ensure that it can also be used for overnight lorry parking? I want lorry parking to be included in all major road improvements—specifically the lower Thames crossing—not just in Kent, but across the country.

Andrew Lewer: Just as in Faversham and Mid Kent, my constituency experiences a lot of lorry traffic and much of its economy is based on logistics. The Department for Transport focuses heavily on rail—often for good reason—but with the majority of haulage and freight travelling by road, does my hon. Friend agree that the Department needs to consider both rail and road provision? When looking at road provision, the Department needs to consider not just the infrastructure of the roads themselves, but lorry parking and good-quality facilities as a priority.

Helen Whately: I thank my hon. Friend for making the point that investing in road infrastructure, as we are doing in this country, goes hand in hand with planning for where lorries will park and the facilities that drivers  will need. No major road investment should be planned without facilities for the motorists and lorry drivers who will use the roads.
As we provide more parking places, we must ensure that drivers use them, and I welcome the signals the Government have been sending about effective enforcement. For example, they have supported the enforcement pilot that is currently under way in Ashford, where lorries are being clamped the first time they park illegally. The pilot has successfully reduced reoffending and the message is getting through, because only one lorry has been clamped twice and all fines have been paid. My hon. Friend the Minister has kindly contributed to that success by allowing the local authority to increase the fines that it can charge, meaning that the council is no longer left out of pocket when lorries are clamped, and I thank him for that. If the clamping pilot continues to get results, I hope that it can be rolled out across Kent and then throughout the country. Eventually, we should have a complete ban on lorries parking for long breaks outside truck stops. However, as drivers have told me many times, it is only reasonable to enforce a ban on lorry fly-parking if there are enough legitimate places for lorries to park.
As I have said, Kent is disproportionately affected by lorry fly-parking because most of the UK’s road freight travels along the M20 and then across the channel or, alternatively, down the M2 and A2 and then down to the channel crossings in Kent. The Port of Dover handles 10,000 HGVs a day. Although we feel the problem so particularly in Kent, it is a national one, and I know from colleagues that there are lorries lining up on many trunk roads across the country. Perhaps at some point in the future we will have self-driving lorries, which I assume will not need to stop to sleep, but that is not going to happen for some years—probably some decades—so we must do something about the issue in the meantime. My hon. Friend the Minister gets that, as did his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and I thank them for the hard work that they have put in so far.
To conclude, may I just say to the Minister that if we are to achieve the vision of a dynamic country that is fit for the future, we need the right infrastructure to keep the economy moving? The current situation is unacceptable for lorry drivers, for other motorists, and for residents who live in the places that have become improvised truck stops. It is also dangerous. We need more lorry parks, better facilities for drivers and effective enforcement. In that way, we can end lorry fly-parking and make our roads safer.

Jesse Norman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) on securing this debate about lorry parking, a subject we know from previous debates, including the one last October, is of great importance to Members who represent parts of the country and communities adversely affected by lorry fly-parking. She has been a vigorous and doughty campaigner on this issue. As I recently heard at a roundtable of road freight stakeholders— I hasten to reassure her that that was one of many regular meetings I have with the industry and its stakeholders—it is just as much a concern for trade bodies and driver unions.
My Department is, as one would expect, considering the issue not merely in relation to Kent, although that is of central importance, for reasons I will outline, but on a national basis. But it does have particular salience in Kent and we should be clear about that. The Dover strait ports handle a considerable majority of the entire country’s international road freight, thus creating a particular challenge in relation to HGV traffic in that county. Road freight plays an indispensable role in keeping our economy moving, and we must not lose sight of that fact, but we must also be mindful of the adverse effects it can have on communities, which my hon. Friend has well delineated, and do our best to mitigate them.
I understand that fly-parking can blight localities such as lay-bys, which are not intended for overnight parking and do not generally have even the most basic facilities. I want my hon. Friend to know that colleagues across the Department share that view. In addition to the environmental consequences of fly-parking, she has drawn attention to the potential road safety risks it can pose. Of course, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the particular causes of the tragic incident she referred to, but, speaking generically, I am grateful to her for highlighting, through it, the potentially devastating consequences of unsafe parking. We must be quite clear: dangerous parking is never acceptable. As is set out in the Highway Code, it is an offence to park in a dangerous position, and such behaviour is rightly the subject of active enforcement by the police. As she has noted, there are provisions in the drivers’ hours rules to enable drivers to depart from the standard limits in order to reach a safe stopping place, so these requirements are no excuse for unsafe parking. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that there is a shortage of overnight lorry parking in Kent and more widely. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) noted, facilities to enable HGV drivers to take a proper break, in a safe and secure environment and with access to welfare amenities, should be seen as a key part of our national infrastructure.
However, the situation, although complex, is far from hopeless. A number of initiatives are under way which should help to make a real difference and to address the current supply and demand mismatch. I am encouraged by plans in the private sector to bring additional parking provision to the market. In particular, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned, the plans by Ashford International Truck Stop to double in size are highly encouraging. Other market-led developments, for example in relation to the online booking of parking spaces, should help to maximise the efficient use of existing sites. But government clearly can play a role in facilitating greater provision. Kent County Council is, with the support of Highways England, identifying where additional parking provision is most needed, and that council is working closely with private sector providers to identify what funding options exist to bring those sites into being.
As Kent Members will be well aware, we have been obliged to rethink our previous plans for a lorry park in east Kent for use as part of Operation Stack. However, we remain committed to developing a permanent solution to the issue of lorry parking in the county. I can confirm  that the initial public consultation on this, which Highways England expects to launch in the spring, will also seek views on the use of the lorry park for “business-as-usual” overnight parking, precisely as my hon. Friend has suggested.
Nationally, we are looking carefully at the evidence as to gaps between demand and supply throughout the country and the potential role that the Government could play in facilitating development at specific sites. The different measures I have described will not lead overnight to more lorry parking, but they demonstrate that central and local government and private providers are seeking to pull together in the same direction.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent asked what is currently preventing further expansion by operators. She touched on many of the relevant factors in her speech. Ministers and officials have discussed the shortage of lorry parking spaces with a number of providers and potential providers, with a view to understanding what is preventing expansion and how policy measures might make a difference.
As my hon. Friend suggested, planning is a major concern. Motorway service areas are also an important part of the picture, as they provide around half the 15,000 lorry parking spaces throughout the country. The Department for Transport circular that covers planning and roadside facilities on the strategic road network was changed in 2013 to help to enable applications to be considered more efficiently. Nevertheless, developers still take a significant financial risk that, at the planning stage, proposals will be turned down or suffer lengthy delays, even when those developers can be rationally certain that there is significant demand.
Some providers are keen to bring forward innovative business models—for example, by combining truck parks with other services, such as refuelling and services for general motorists. Such models can pose some challenges for planning decisions, including in respect of the need to ensure that different business models are treated fairly in the planning system and in relation to providers’ obligations to pay for the necessary highway access.
Planning permission can, then, be one of the key obstacles to development. In this context, we are examining how best to ensure that the strategic importance of adequate lorry parking is given due weight in planning decisions. However, we should acknowledge that some of the planning challenges reflect the legitimate concerns of local residents and other stakeholders, as one would expect, and each application must be considered on its merits.
This is not just a question of planning risk; it goes to the nature of the business itself. Truck parks are often low-margin businesses, and they require significant space. In that context, the commercial viability of potential truck parks can be limited by the preference of some drivers to park for free by the roadside. Enforcement against inappropriate parking must go alongside the provision of truck parks. It is an important part of the overall solution. By cracking down on the ability to park up for free in inappropriate locations, we should help to provide the market with confidence that demand for proper parking facilities will be there.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has been so supportive of the enforcement measures that are being piloted on a stretch of the A20, including our “clamp first time”  approach. Since I last addressed the House on this subject, that trial has got under way, and we are closely monitoring the results. As my hon. Friend has noticed, I recently authorised Ashford Borough Council to use a higher clamping-release fee, to ensure that the trial remains financially viable.
Early indications are that the trial is going well. In the first few weeks of the 18-month trial, there was no identified displacement into residential areas or other industrial estates in Ashford. The initial signs are that there is a reduction in the level of illegal parking and we are hopeful that over time it will further decrease to a significant extent. I am aware that other councils would be keen to implement similar measures; that could well be a long-term outcome if the trial proves successful, and I know that my hon. Friend gave that suggestion her support in her speech.
It is important to draw well-supported conclusions from the pilot before considering any wider roll-out that may have national implications. However, the local willingness to enforce this robustly should make it clear to potential developers that public authorities can play a part in ensuring that market demand is there if additional provision is forthcoming on the supply side.
Across the country, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency has recently begun to issue £300 fixed penalties to drivers caught taking their 45-hour weekly rest in inappropriate locations such as lay-bys. Almost all of those caught so far have been non-GB drivers. Records of such offending will feed into cross-border intelligence sharing about problematic operators at the corporate level.
Before wrapping up, I should take this opportunity to make it clear that we have not lost sight of the importance of the driver welfare dimension to lorry parking. As my hon. Friend highlights, this is all the  more pertinent in the context of the industry’s efforts to attract young people and women into driving. Although it should be noted that there are a wide range of jobs in the industry, many of those do not entail overnight stays. In that context, we have reviewed the health and safety regulations in relation to facilities for visiting drivers at distribution centres. I am pleased to say that, as a consequence, the Health and Safety Executive has clarified that drivers must have access to welfare facilities, including toilets, in the premises they visit as part of their work. My Department is working with stakeholders to draw up a statement of rights as to facilities to help improve the standard of facilities available to drivers at distribution centres.
In addition to the quality of driver facilities at distribution centres, there are of course issues relating to the quantity of on-site parking at some of these developments. It is important, too, to note that local planning authorities should challenge developers to ensure that there is sufficient on-site parking to avoid the displacement of waiting lorries to the surrounding area.
We know that the quality of facilities could be better at some overnight lorry parks, including some motorway service areas—of that there can be no doubt. In this context, I am encouraged by market initiatives to increase the transparency around the facilities available, which should help to drive up standards over time.
Let us be clear that the Government are considering the issue of lorry parking with the importance that it deserves. We will continue to seek out opportunities to facilitate more and better quality provision alongside our industry and local government partners.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.